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

[_MCB]

Well that's how totem poles were used isn't it? The carved out pictures represented stories which were past down through the generations.


But the Book of Mormon was not supposedly put on sticks, it was supposedly engraved word by word in "reformed egyptican" whatever that looks like...onto metal plates .

From the Mormon point of view, however you massage the known information to match pre-conceived assumptions is justified. :))

[_GlennThigpen]

but I can show you a Book of Mormon that is not about the lost tribes.

I did a search of the Book of Mormon and “lost tribes” was mentioned 3 times, of that twice in one sentence. On page 500 and on page 2098. So what else in the Book of Mormon would indicate that Lehi and family were not descended from the lost tribes? In other words what was it about the story that makes it obvious the characters could not have any association the mythical storyline of the lost tribes?

That is strange. The Book of Mormon only has 535 pages total. Did you actually read what those passages said?

And behold, there are many who are already lost from the knowledge of those who are at Jerusalem. Yea, the more part of all the tribes have been led away; and they are scattered to and fro upon the isles of the sea; and whither they are none of us knoweth, save that we know that they have been led away.

And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews.

But now I go unto the Father, and also to show myself unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not lost unto the Father, for he knoweth whither he hath taken them.

Not only do you not get a lost tribes theme from the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon explicitly tells anyone reading it that it is not about the lost tribes, but that they have been led too and fro upon the isles of the sea. It clearly distinguishes between Nephites and lost tribes, and lastly, Jesus says that He will be showing himself to the lost tribes after he leaves the Nephites.

I am not concerned about "exactly the same thing" except for the fact that several of the witnesses used the same exact phrases. But only the Hurbut witnesses.

What is it about exact phrases that bothers you? Obviously the Conneaut witnesses were aware that their statements would be read by others. When looking at their statements I notice similarities in their descriptions of what Spalding’s book was about. John Spalding said “first settlers of America”, Martha Spalding said “founded upon the first settlers of America” Oliver Smith said “founded upon the first settlers of this country”, Oliver Smith said “account of the inhabitants once in this country, Aron Wright said “first settlers of America, John Miller said “it purported to be a history of the settlement of America, before discovered by Columbus” Artemis Cunningham said “of the first settlers of this country… account of the first inhabitants of America”. Are you suggesting that they are lying? That they are simply copying the first person who suggested it was about first settlers to America? And if Hurlbut was putting words in their mouths why was he putting “lost Tribes” into their heads?

marge, there have been many people who have noted the similarity of the phrasing among the Conneaut witnesses and the disparity of the phrasing of the statements by the other witnesses. You need to do a bit of research on that. I have noted some of the phrases several times. I don't know if you have really been paying attention to what I have been saying. There is a reason that historians pro and con on the Book of Mormon have theri suspicions about those statements. I do not think that Hurlbut had anything to do with the lost tribes. That was something that would more than likely have come from discussing a book like Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, which came out in 1823 and was reprinted in 1825.

As far as the other witnesses and your concerns of “why didn't Josiah Spalding, Matilda Spalding Davison (the widow), Matilda McKinstry (the daughter), Redick McKee, and Joseph Miller have those same recollections?” could you be more explicit. I’ve addressed Josiah Spalding and that he was in contact with his brother before he began the second manuscript Manuscript Found. I don’t see anything in the other witnesses statements that conflict with the Conneaut witnesses and indicate faulty memory or lying.

Because they were so unlike the so alike statements by the witnesses contacted by Hurlbut.

Redick McKee statement is consistent with memory studies which point out that details typically are forgotten long-term though they can be recalled with appropriate retrieval cues, general information is remembered much longer and especially when it can be visualized and/or associated with the rememberers knowledge.

Yes, the sticky name Canaan is right up there. I'm sorry marge, that explanation is too far out. When you go from generalities to specifics, it does not work. You can reduce anything down far enough from specifics to generalities and get some kind of fit. That is what you are trying to do with the lost tribes problem, reduce it from explicit to general to make your problem go away. But by the time you get through doing that, you will excise all meaning from anything.

It is understandable Glenn that the Conneaut witnesses were shown by Hurlbut previous statements given as an aid to encourage and as well as make it easier for the witnesses to prepare their own statements. That doesn’t mean that when they say they "well recollect" that they are mistaken on that.

And it certainly does not mean they were recollecting correctly either.

This is incorrect in at least two areas. One is that Josiah's statement says that he went to Ohio and stayed with Solomon for a while after the war broke out and their financial calamities began. That would have been the war of 1812

I see nowhere in his statement that he says he stayed with Solomon after the war broke out.

And a noteworthy point is that his description is that of Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek and leaves off where the Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek which resurfaced in 1880 leaves off. But he notes that Spalding’s wife informed him that Solomon had continued his history of the civilized nation and the progress of war until the triumph of the savages to the destruction of the civilized government.

marge here is what Josiah said:

....The war that broke out with England seriously affected that country. That circumstance, with some other misfortunes that happened, placed us in difficult circumstances. We were under the necessity to make great sacrifices to pay our debts. I went to see my brother and staid with him some time.....His widow then returned to the State of New York, and lived there a while and then came to Connecticut. She informed me, if I recollect right, that my brother continued his history of the civilized nation and the progress of the war until the triumph of the savages to the destruction of the civilized government.

The first part of the statement, by inference, logically would put Josiah Spalding staying with his brother, Solomon, in Conneaut after June of 1812. The War of 1812, with England, broke out in June of 1812. Calamities associated with that war and others had out the two of them in difficult circumstances. Josiah does not say how long after the war broke out that he went to stay with his brother, but logically it would have been sometime after June of 1812. Josiah is not certain that his brother's widow did complete the novel. Solomon may well have completed it. But that would just be speculating.

The story is already incoherent enough. Joseph Miller, another Amity witness said not a thing about it. McKee says nothing about the Americas. He changed his story in a later statement also. But who cares if the witnesses are consistent?

As far as McKee saying nothing about the Americas I think you’re nitpicking it’s just an oversight that he likely figured was basic to the storyline. Had Mckee gone into lots of details and then failed to mention that you'd have a point.

Okay, when none, I mean none, of the other witnesses says a word about the fable being about the Canaanites before Joshua invaded the land, I am nitpicking?

All those witnesses that Hurlbut took statements from said they read or reviewed the Book of Mormon., so as I’ve pointed out before with the retrieval cue of the Book of Mormon it is understandable why some would recollect names that had been used often in Spalding’s book. Joseph Miller’s son read to him passages from the Book of Mormon and he recognized some as Spalding’s and one in particular, he does mention Amelikites. He also may have been aware of Howe’s book and the Conneaut witnesses’ statements and appreciated … that giving details they had already given would not add any value.

He picked up on an event, a scene, that is in the Book of Mormon and in the Oberlin manuscript. He did not pick up on any of the names quoted by the Hurlbut witnesses.

Hurlbert likely asked witnesses questions to encourage them and he likely showed them previous statements to also encourage and make it easier for the witnesses. I pointed out previously that if lost tribes is not in the Book of Mormon that would be evidence that Hurlbut was not trying to put words false ideas in the minds or get them to lie. And the fact that he submitted Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek which worked against his plan to expose the Book of Mormon as a conspiracy indicates he wasn’t so devious as to destroy that evidence against his plans.

And that is exactly what we have been saying as to his leading the witnesses. That is classic and a no no.

That is one of the reasons that most historians, pro and con LDS, have dismissed them. Not out of hand, but after analyzing them and the statements made by other witnesses.

The statements are not inconsistent with one another. If they were you’d have a point.

After pointing out multiple inconsistencies to you, I would say that we are at an impasse.

People remember general features easier and generally longer than details. So for example when an entire book is summarized in a few sentences to give the essence of it that’s what I consider a gist memory. The witnesses summarized Spalding’s book in a few sentences in their words. It’s not a matter of it being well encoded it’s a matter of it’s just easier to remember general features as opposed to details. After 20 years recalling details would be difficult and only after being cued well would they likely remember details.

And after being miscued well, they could be misrembering details.

marge, I pointed out inconsistencies that were either inaccurate recollections or lies. It does not matter which one as to the accuracy of their statements.

I don’t find anything that you pointed out so far to come even close to being justifiable reasons to dismiss any of the Spalding witnesses statements. First there were the attacks on their memories and in essence those doing the attacking have little appreciation of how memory works and what the memory studies do say. You’ve tried to attack their statements based on inconsistencies but you’ve not shown how any of the witnesses statements contradict one another. And as far as “lost Tribes” you've not explained how absent those few sentences containing the words “lost Tribes” in the Book of Mormon why the characters could not be fairly recent descendents of the mythical “lost Tribes.” So what is left ...is to accuse them of lying. Yet none of them went out of their way to give statements they were the ones who were approached. They had nothing to gain, they were not anti-Mormon, and if anything giving statements was a hassle and inconvenience to their lives. These witnesses were honest, intelligent, respected citizens of the community.

marge, I have explained coherently why the Book of Mormon is not a lost tribes story. I would bet that until I brought the subject up, you had never connected the Book of Mormon with the lost tribes. I would wager that not one person in a hundred would read the Book of Mormon and view it as a lost tribes as the ancestors of the American Indians story.
Until we have someone who is an expert on memory analyze the statements of those witnesses, we really do not have much to argue about. Memory confabulation is a real possibility. I cannot prove it, and do not really have to. I have just pointed out areas where it makes sense, or that the witnesses were lying.

Glenn

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

My knowledge of the Bible is minimal so it's difficult for me to make heads or tails of this "lost tribes" issue.

Marge, if you are not any more familiar with the Book of Mormon than you are with the Bible, you are in no position to speak informedly on either topic.

Ok so given the above and that Lehi is a descendant of Manasseh (according to the Book of Mormon), isn’t Manasseh a descendant of Joseph which is one of the “lost tribes”?

There is no tribe of Joseph. Reuben lost his birthright because he had sexual relations with one of his father's concubines. Joesph was given a double portion through his sons, Manasseh and Ephraim.

Also correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Manasseh only mentioned once in the entire Book of Mormon?

It is mentioned three times. Once in the passage you quoted, and twice in 2 Nephi 19:21, which is quoting Isaiah.

Glenn

[Guest]

Glenn,

I used a digital format in order to search for the number of times a word is used such as "lost tribes". It was 2 Nephi 29:13 ..and 3 Nephi 17:4. So you've added one more @ 1 Nephi 22:4.

So essentially lost tribes is s mentioned 3 times in the Book of Mormon.

Not only do you not get a lost tribes theme from the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon explicitly tells anyone reading it that it is not about the lost tribes, but that they have been led too and fro upon the isles of the sea. It clearly distinguishes between Nephites and lost tribes, and lastly, Jesus says that He will be showing himself to the lost tribes after he leaves the Nephites.

It mentions it in 3 short paragraphs.

If one were to look at the Book of Mormon absent those paragraphs would one be able to deduce from the storyline that lehi could not be associated with the lost tribes? You didn't answer my question Glenn.."In other words what was it about the story that makes it obvious the characters could not have any association the mythical storyline of the lost tribes?"

marge, there have been many people who have noted the similarity of the phrasing among the Conneaut witnesses and the disparity of the phrasing of the statements by the other witnesses. You need to do a bit of research on that.

No Glenn I don't need to research other people's arguments...you need to make the argument that the witnesses contradicted each other ..not simply that some mentioned specific names while others didn't, or one mentioned Darien but other's didn't or that many of the eight Hurlbut interviewed said the same thing. All of those points of inconsistency can be accounted for as simply individuals giving their statement ...but focusing or remembering something other than other witnesses. As long as their memories do not contradict it is understandable there would be differences in statements. As far as the similarities, yes it can be accounted for by Hurlbut asking them the same questions and by him showing them previous statements. As far as the witnesses were concerned their credibility wasn't the issue for them at least. They could appreciate without the Manuscript they recalled for verification, nothing they said could be proved. So they knew, either people believed them or didn't. They wrote simple concise statements..the essence of their points is that they well recollected some details that to them proved Spalding's manuscript had to have been used for the Book of Mormon..at least in part.

I don't know if you have really been paying attention to what I have been saying. There is a reason that historians pro and con on the Book of Mormon have theri suspicions about those statements. I do not think that Hurlbut had anything to do with the lost tribes. That was something that would more than likely have come from discussing a book like Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, which came out in 1823 and was reprinted in 1825.

As I've mentioned to you, people get confused with memories when they have poor source memories. That is they don't recall where and when or from whom, those memories came from. That occurs for example with implanted memories via some therapies, it occurs for example when there is little way to differentiate associations between memories..one event is extremely similar to another and so confusion occurs where a memory originated. But these individuals for the most part at different times to each other listened to Spalding talk about his story in progress as well as him read it. For the most part they recall the general storyline which they associated visually with the local mounds in the area they lived. They didn't get into many details other than to mention that after looking at the Book of Mormon, some particular detail such as a name or two they recollected well. And that's understandable if some names spalding repeated frequently such as Nephi, which is repeated over 3,000 times in the Book of Mormon. Other things which would likely stick out in their memories would be unique style of writing, repeated phrasing.

You are basically theorizing that everyone of them, having read or heard about Ethan Smith or lost tribes, were unable to differentiate their source memory of listening to spalding read and discuss his book versus them reading Ethan smith or hearing someone else discuss lost tribes. It's just not reasonable for them to all be confused given their repeated exposure to Spalding and his work and the uniqueness of that exposure which involved, listening and seeing. They frequently heard Spalding read, in which case they'd have source memories of being in a room, listening to his voice..not just once but on many occasions. One person maybe might get confused but not all of them. by the way I'm aware of Brodie's argument against the Conneaut witnesses and it's poor at best. It essentially attacks their memories without good justification.

Because they were so unlike the so alike statements by the witnesses contacted by Hurlbut.

And that's easy to account for. They weren't asked the questions Hurlbut asked. Redick didn't even look at the Book of Mormon or mention that he had, and so he gave no details. Miller listened to his son read the Book of Mormon and of those passages, he commented on a particular detailed memory he recalled. But he didn't get into the general storyline of Spalding's book. Why should he? What difference would it make. It's enough that he points out a particular memory of the Amelikites, one either believes him or they don't. His adding more details would add no value, wouldn't make his statement any stronger.

Yes, the sticky name Canaan is right up there. I'm sorry marge, that explanation is too far out. When you go from generalities to specifics, it does not work. You can reduce anything down far enough from specifics to generalities and get some kind of fit. That is what you are trying to do with the lost tribes problem, reduce it from explicit to general to make your problem go away. But by the time you get through doing that, you will excise all meaning from anything.

McKee was with Spalding later than the Conneaut witnesses, it's possible Spalding added Canaan as it's only a bit before "lost tribes" time period. In any event, McKee is not recalling Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek which has nothing to do with the Middle East area in biblical times.

And it certainly does not mean they were recollecting correctly either.

One person might be mistaken but all 8 becomes much more unreasonable.

marge here is what Josiah said:

....The war that broke out with England seriously affected that country. That circumstance, with some other misfortunes that happened, placed us in difficult circumstances. We were under the necessity to make great sacrifices to pay our debts. I went to see my brother and staid with him some time.....His widow then returned to the State of New York, and lived there a while and then came to Connecticut. She informed me, if I recollect right, that my brother continued his history of the civilized nation and the progress of the war until the triumph of the savages to the destruction of the civilized government.

The first part of the statement, by inference, logically would put Josiah Spalding staying with his brother, Solomon, in Conneaut after June of 1812. The War of 1812, with England, broke out in June of 1812. Calamities associated with that war and others had out the two of them in difficult circumstances. Josiah does not say how long after the war broke out that he went to stay with his brother, but logically it would have been sometime after June of 1812. Josiah is not certain that his brother's widow did complete the novel. Solomon may well have completed it. But that would just be speculating.

What you are suggesting Glenn is that Josiah's meomory at the age of 90 ..43 years after an event is better than all the 8 witnesses who were not in their old age and only recalling an event 20 years after.. In addition when you read what he says he's not specific that he's tying the war into exactly when Spalding began the manuscript he's recalling, it seems as if he's mentioning the war because it is a contributing factor for them having financial troubles. "The war that broke out with England seriously affected that country. That circumstance, with some other misfortunes that happened, placed us in difficult circumstances. We were under the necessity to make great sacrifices to pay our debts. I went to see my brother and staid with him some time. I found him unwell, and somewhat low in spirits. He began to compose his novel, which it is conjectured that the Mormons made use of in forming their Bible.". He says Spalding was writing for his own amusement and that's also what Aron Wright said when he was shown Manuscript found- Conneaut witness.

" I recognize them to
be the writings handwriting of SD Spalding but not
the Manuscript I had refferance to in my statement
before alluded to as he informed me he wrote in the
first place he wrote for his own amusement and
then altered his plan and commenced writing a
history of the first Settlement of America"

So Josiah is saying spalding was financially in trouble but not just because of the war, other factors were involved. And he wasn't writing as a plan to pay off debts which apparently is what Spalding did later. The evidence is not very good based on that statement alone given that dates can be confusing with time and it's 43 years after the event that Josiah is saying Spalding began the manuscript that he recalls when the war of 1812 began. It's quite conceivable that spalding began it previous to June 1812 and after Josiah left began another manuscript. If the war did cause considerable financial difficulties all the more reason that Spalding abandon writing simply for amusement and write in order to sell and make some money.

Okay, when none, I mean none, of the other witnesses says a word about the fable being about the Canaanites before Joshua invaded the land, I am nitpicking?

Well McKee made that statement after all the others...that we've been talking about anyhow. He was with Spalding after the conneaut witnesses..so perhaps Spalding added a bit about Canaan going back a bit further in time or perhaps McKee knew it had to do with the Bible but was getting his stories mixed up. In any event, he's not recalling Manuscript Story- Conneaut Creek.

He picked up on an event, a scene, that is in the Book of Mormon and in the Oberlin manuscript. He did not pick up on any of the names quoted by the Hurlbut witnesses.

He didn't mention details other than one which he explains why it was memorable. As pointed out previously there would have been no added value, in listing all the details he could remember as a result of retrieval cues from the Book of Mormon while his son read it. It was not as if anything he said he remembered... could be verified. One significant detail is all that was necessary to make the point that he was certain that spalding's manuscript had been used for the Book of Mormon. Any more would add nothing.

And that is exactly what we have been saying as to his leading the witnesses. That is classic and a no no.

Of course it isn't the best thing to do. But in the studies you or others have used the reason for confusion was due to poor recall due to poor source memory. So when images are flashed on a screen briefly as in some studies, there is a poor source memory. That is, it is difficult to differentiate whether one remembers seeing a stop sign or a yield sign or whatever the subject was briefly exposed to. he conneaut witnesses didn't recall many details, and of the ones they did they said they clearly remembered them due to review of the Book of Mormon bringing the detail back to their memory. Most of their statements were about their general recall of the storyline. And general memories well encoded do tend to be remembered much more so than details. Apparently there were even more witnesses than the 8. And they were consistent with one another so Howe only included 8 in his book. It's doubtful all 8 are in error.

After pointing out multiple inconsistencies to you, I would say that we are at an impasse.

What I should have said is that their statements do not contradict one another. Just because some mention names and others don't which you consider an inconsistency does not mean they contradict one another. I believe I asked where statements contradict one another and I don't recall you answering that.

And after being miscued well, they could be misrembering details.

No if they have good source memories, being miscued would not make them recall something they weren't exposed to. They stated they "well remembered" certain details. And that is reasonable considering the experience they had which allowed for deep encoding ...the visual of spalding reading and discussing as well as hearing him. In the examples of studies source memory such as "abuse" the event of abuse was not remembered previous to commencement of therapy. It was through guided imagery sessions that people visualized abuse and later thought they remembered well. But if questioned they would not have had good source memory for abuse. Hurlbut was in no position to use guided imagery or authority in order to get people to believe they remembered something well when they hadn't ..such as Nephi or the phrase "and it came to pass". Instead high repetition of the phrase or name would likely encode elaborately and could be retrieved by exposure to the Book of Mormon. The conneaut witnesses would appreciate whether they remembered some details well or not.

marge, I have explained coherently why the Book of Mormon is not a lost tribes story.

A mention of it 3 times in the Book of Mormon does not explain why if those lines were taken out, that the story could not easily be that lehi was a descendant of lost tribes.

I would bet that until I brought the subject up, you had never connected the Book of Mormon with the lost tribes. I would wager that not one person in a hundred would read the Book of Mormon and view it as a lost tribes as the ancestors of the American Indians story.

I don't appreciate the Lost tribes story at all, well barely. But it seems to me, Lehi is around the same time period, or a little bit after and from the Middle East ..same as lost tribes, so it seems to me the story could be were it not for the 3 lines mentioning lost tribes, that lehi was supposed to be a descendant of them. You've not explained why that couldn't be.

Until we have someone who is an expert on memory analyze the statements of those witnesses, we really do not have much to argue about. Memory confabulation is a real possibility. I cannot prove it, and do not really have to. I have just pointed out areas where it makes sense, or that the witnesses were lying.

I did ask for a memory study which aligns well with the experience of the conneaut witnesses. And those using "false memory" to dismiss the witnesses have not provided one. Mikwuts' "War of the Ghosts" doesn't align. That's a study in which subjects read a couple of paragraphs twice and later were tested. It was found that over time people recall the general outline but change details to ones which they are more familiar with and can relate to personally. Again the problem with this study is the source memory was poor because people only read the paragraphs twice ...in all about 10 minutes. So a detail of a canoe might be recalled as a boat. Dan's "lost in the mall at age 5" was very different from the conneaut witnesses experience. The subjects had no source memory of being lost in the mall and were told that their parents had informed the researchers this happened. So the combination of no source memory, along with authority which subjects trusted telling them over a number of sessions that the event happened led 25 % to beleive they were lost in the mall at age 5.

When you find a study which aligns well with the conneaut witnesses then you'll have a warranted argument against them. But what they describe is consistent with memory. Not all memory is lost completely over time, recall is what becomes difficult. General memory retains but details diminish. However with good retrieval cues details forgotten can be recalled.

It's just been too convenient to dismiss so many witnesses on the basis of faulty memory. It's a lazy unwarranted argument.

[_aussieguy55]

Does Glenn have the same standards for the Book of Mormon witnesses. Did they see the plates literally or in the "spirit'.? Does the same standards apply to the Hurlbut, Kelly and Deming interviews?

[_marg]

My knowledge of the Bible is minimal so it's difficult for me to make heads or tails of this "lost tribes" issue.

Marge, if you are not any more familiar with the Book of Mormon than you are with the Bible, you are in no position to speak informedly on either topic.

I've repeatedly said ad nausea I don't understand the lost tribes myth. I've been pretty clear about what I'm familiar with versus what I'm not. Unlike some people who have been citing studies to warrant an argument when it had become clear they don't understand what the studies say and how they should be applied.
However lack of knowledge of the Book of Mormon and the Bible, shouldn't prevent me from asking you the question which I asked previously and you didn't answer, that if one were to take out the 3 specific mentions in the Book of Mormon about lost tribes..would that still preclude Lehi from being from a lost tribe. What else other than those 3 mentions makes it clear lehi could not be from the lost tribes?

There is no tribe of Joseph. Reuben lost his birthright because he had sexual relations with one of his father's concubines. Joesph was given a double portion through his sons, Manasseh and Ephraim.

I fully acknowledge this is Greek to me however in wiki it says: "On the other hand, Jacob elevated the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh (the two sons of Joseph by his Egyptian wife Asenath) (Genesis 41:50) to the status of full tribes in their own right, replacing the Tribe of Joseph (Joshua 14:4). Each received its own land and had its own encampment during the 40 years of wandering in the desert."

So from the above it sounds as if the Tribe of Joseph became the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. And I don't see why Joseph is not one of the lost tribes.

It is mentioned three times. Once in the passage you quoted, and twice in 2 Nephi 19:21, which is quoting Isaiah.

[/quote]

So it looks as if Manasseh could have been an add on to Spalding's work since spalding didn't quote Isaiah.

So if the lost tribes and Manasseh were not in the Book of Mormon could Lehi still be from the lost tribes..what would preclude him from that which is mentioned in the Book of Mormon, other than the few mentions we've noted?

[_marg]

Ok so given the above and that Lehi is a descendant of Manasseh (according to the Book of Mormon), isn’t Manasseh a descendant of Joseph which is one of the “lost tribes”?

There is no tribe of Joseph. Reuben lost his birthright because he had sexual relations with one of his father's concubines. Joesph was given a double portion through his sons, Manasseh and Ephraim.

I'm still trying to get a handle on this lost tribes business and this information seems pretty consistent generally with what I've been reading from the net.


http://bibleprobe.com/lost.htm

Jacob had 12 sons. Each of these sons who each formed a tribe in Israel. These were: Reuben, Shimon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Joseph, and Benjamin. Known to history as the 12 Tribes of Israel, these tribes settled on both sides of the Jordan River.

After the death of King Solomon, the Hebrew nation split into two kingdoms. Two tribes, including the tribe of Judah and the tribe of the Jacob's youngest son (Benjamin) formed the Southern Kingdom, and the other 10 tribes, centered around Samaria made up the Northern Kingdom of Israel. In the year 722 BC, the Assyrians conquered the Kingdom of Israel and sent the Ten Tribes into Exile. Since then, their fate has been cloaked in a shroud of mystery and legend.




It all started in Genesis 49 when Jacob divided the birthright. Judah (the ONLY tribe to be called Jews) only got the right to rule and make the laws. Joseph got everything else, including all the prophecies and promises to Abraham. Joseph's descendents were the nobility of the 12-tribed nation. If you'll look at Ezekiel 23, you'll see that the pre-eminent sister in God's eyes was Ahola, "the elder". God immediately clarifies by telling us that Ahola is Samaria, the symbol of the northern kingdom, called the House of Israel. When the whole nation of Israel, which included the soon-to-be-called-Jews of the tribe of Judah, split soon after Solomon's death, it was like Judah seceded from the twelve-tribed union and took Benjamin with them. Israel really stayed pretty much the same, with the Ephraimites in charge. Every time you read House of Israel, or Joseph, Ephraim, Isaac, Samaria and other names it refers to the ten tribes of the northern kingdom (the Nation of Israel).

So Glenn, it appears Joseph can be viewed as a tribe and that his sons names were used for 2 tribes..Emphraim and Manasseh. In the Book of Mormon Lehi is supposed to be a descendent of Manasseh..which is a tribe within the 10 lost tribes grouping. So if those 3 mentions in the Book of Mormon about Lost tribes living elsewhere were not in the Book of Mormon , one would assume lehi was a descendant of a lost tribe...at least I would. The only thing I can see which makes it clear the Book of Mormon is not about lost tribes are those 3 brief specific mentions and without those mentions one could assume otherwise, that it was a story which starts out with a person from lost tribes and his family.

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn,

I used a digital format in order to search for the number of times a word is used such as "lost tribes". It was 2 Nephi 29:13 ..and 3 Nephi 17:4. So you've added one more @ 1 Nephi 22:4.

So essentially lost tribes is s mentioned 3 times in the Book of Mormon.

Not only do you not get a lost tribes theme from the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon explicitly tells anyone reading it that it is not about the lost tribes, but that they have been led too and fro upon the isles of the sea. It clearly distinguishes between Nephites and lost tribes, and lastly, Jesus says that He will be showing himself to the lost tribes after he leaves the Nephites.

It mentions it in 3 short paragraphs.

If one were to look at the Book of Mormon absent those paragraphs would one be able to deduce from the storyline that lehi could not be associated with the lost tribes? You didn't answer my question Glenn.."In other words what was it about the story that makes it obvious the characters could not have any association the mythical storyline of the lost tribes?"

If you were to look at the Book of Mormon absent those paragraphs, there is essentially nothing that would connect it to a lost tribes story. The only faintest connection is the fact that Lehi is a descendant of Manasseh, which is one of the lost tribes. And no matter how hard you try, you cannot logically adduce a lost tribes story as the ancestors of the American Indians from one man. From a population of approximately four million people, represented by one man. And then, those verses are in the Book of Mormon, which explicitly tell anyone reading the book that it definitely is not a lost tribes story.

What you are suggesting Glenn is that Josiah's meomory at the age of 90 ..43 years after an event is better than all the 8 witnesses who were not in their old age and only recalling an event 20 years after.. In addition when you read what he says he's not specific that he's tying the war into exactly when Spalding began the manuscript he's recalling, it seems as if he's mentioning the war because it is a contributing factor for them having financial troubles. "The war that broke out with England seriously affected that country. That circumstance, with some other misfortunes that happened, placed us in difficult circumstances. We were under the necessity to make great sacrifices to pay our debts. I went to see my brother and staid with him some time. I found him unwell, and somewhat low in spirits. He began to compose his novel, which it is conjectured that the Mormons made use of in forming their Bible.". He says Spalding was writing for his own amusement and that's also what Aron Wright said when he was shown Manuscript found- Conneaut witness.

Well, a war is a pretty good gist item. His recollections also dovetail pretty well with the other accounts of Solomon's troubles. We know when the war started. We know about when Solomon left the area, which appears to be sometime in October of 1812. We know that his description of the book fits the Oberlin manuscript pretty well, in the time frame everyone says that he was writing the "Manuscript Found."

" I recognize them to
be the writings handwriting of SD Spalding but not
the Manuscript I had refferance to in my statement
before alluded to as he informed me he wrote in the
first place he wrote for his own amusement and
then altered his plan and commenced writing a
history of the first Settlement of America"

So Josiah is saying spalding was financially in trouble but not just because of the war, other factors were involved. And he wasn't writing as a plan to pay off debts which apparently is what Spalding did later. The evidence is not very good based on that statement alone given that dates can be confusing with time and it's 43 years after the event that Josiah is saying Spalding began the manuscript that he recalls when the war of 1812 began. It's quite conceivable that spalding began it previous to June 1812 and after Josiah left began another manuscript. If the war did cause considerable financial difficulties all the more reason that Spalding abandon writing simply for amusement and write in order to sell and make some money.

But marge, Josiah had some very good encoding there. A war, nonetheless, and major financial problems that arose from the war. Well that is how wonderfully consistent that your witnesses are. How many of them said that he had already decided, before he left the Conneaut area, to try to have the manuscript published? Then, along comes Redick, who says "He called it Lost History Found, Lost Manuscript, or some such name: not disguising that it was wholly a work of the imagination, written to amuse himself, and without any immediate view to publication." This was in long after he had left the Conneaut area.


So, when did he start writing the alleged manuscript found? It is apparent that Josiah was staying with Solomon some time after June of 1812. He would have seen the same manuscript that the others in the area would have seen. Even though he was at an advanced age, he gave a more detailed description, with some errors, than those contacted by Hurlbut.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

Does Glenn have the same standards for the Book of Mormon witnesses. Did they see the plates literally or in the "spirit'.? Does the same standards apply to the Hurlbut, Kelly and Deming interviews?

Yes, the same standards apply to all witnesses and interrogators. However, we do not have the interrogatories nor anything else that Hurlbut may have divulged in soliciting his affidavits.

As far as the Book of Mormon witnesses, I would say they are on pretty solid ground.

Glenn

[_aussieguy55]

Have you read this:
http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/york/chapter1.htm