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

[_marg]

You did not address my post Glenn, did I correctly identify your argument or not?



You assume that everyone in Spalding's day would have believed if they believed in the lost tribe myth ..that all 10 tribes migrated to the Americas en masse. If that is what the conneaut witnesses believed and Spalding must have believed...they why would they say in the same statement...the book showed Am. Ind. are descendants of lost tribes..and he brought them from Jerusalem under the command of Nephi and Lehi?

You know what Glenn..perhaps you could summarize your argument as succinctly as you can..and then I'll see if I'm missing something. Keep in mind I am not arguing against a Bering str..migration..if that's what you think.

Ok I've cont'd looking into this and did a search and came across Dan Vogel's book http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/indian/indian3.htm#Book

so let me quote:

"Early writers experimented with several possible Jewish migrations: a flight from Sennacherib about 700 B.C.; navigation during the time of Solomon; or a flight from the Romans at the destruction of Jerusalem around A.D. 70.29 But the theory which received perhaps the greatest support and captured the popular imagination in Joseph Smith's day was that which asserted that the Indians were the lost ten tribes of Israel. The theory is based on the apocryphal book 2 Esdras (written about A.D. 100), and included in some nineteenth-century editions of the Bible, [40] which mentions the Assyrian captivity of the northern kingdom of Israel around 734 B.C. An angel shows Ezra a vision of a crowd of people, explaining:..."

and

The debate over Indian origins did not end with a solution to whether the Indians were Adamic or pre-Adamic or whether they had come from Babel or Israel. Those who postulated an Old World origin for the Indians, whatever the theory, had to solve other more specific problems. For example, how and over what route had the Indians traveled to America? Where did they first settle? And what plants and animals were found in the New World? Again, there was no shortage of those willing to speculate about the blanks in New World history.

The mode of travel became the focus of considerable debate. When the dimensions of the New World were finally mapped and it was discovered that the Bering Strait was the point at which the Old and New Worlds were closest, many early writers speculated that it was the place where the first settlers crossed. The Congregational clergyman Jedidiah Morse came close to articulating twentieth-century views when he suggested that the two continents were at one time actually connected by a small "neck of land" which had since been submerged under the [45] ocean.54 Ethan Smith's theory that the Ten Tribes may have crossed the Bering Strait on ice is also interesting.55 Still other writers postulated that America's ancient inhabitants crossed the Bering Strait in small canoes. These suggestions, however, were criticized by James McCulloh, curator of the Maryland Academy of Science, who dismissed them as wishful thinking.56 McCulloh himself proposed that the continent of Atlantis was anciently situated in the Atlantic Ocean and therefore provided a land bridge for people and animals to cross.

A number of critics of the Bering Strait theory pointed out that it would have been impossible for tropical animals to migrate through the arctic zone57 and instead proposed some kind of transoceanic crossing. In a book published in 1761, Journal of a Voyage to North-America, Frenchman Pierre de Charlevoix strongly argued against the pre-Adamite theory, contending that the ancients could have sailed to America from the tower of Babel in a ship like Noah's since they would surely have retained the knowledge of ship building from him.58 "Who can seriously believe," wrote Charlevoix, "that Noah … the builder and pilot of the greatest ship that ever was … should not have communicated to those of his descendants who survived him, and by whose means he was to execute the order of the great Creator, to people the universe, I say, who can believe he should not have communicated to them the art of sailing upon an ocean."59

The Palmyra Herald suggested in 1823 that some Asiatics could have crossed the Pacific Ocean in ancient times and afterwards that some Europeans could have crossed the Atlantic Ocean.60 Debates about such ocean crossings often turned on questions about navigation. Many argued against migration by sea since the ancients had no knowledge of the mariner's compass.61 These arguments caused some writers to delay the arrival of the first Americans until Phoenician navigators could make the trip.62 But the idea that the first settlers of America came by sea was criticized by McCulloh. Even if ancient navigators had reached the New World, he questioned, why would they have brought vicious and useless animals like the wolf and the poisonous snake with them?63 But for the believer, one might as well ask why Noah had preserved wild and vicious animals. There could be only one answer: Noah followed God's will. That might have also been true for America's first settlers."

So not everyone in Spalding and Smith's day..thought that via the Bering str by foot was the only way ancestor of Am. Ind migrated.

The Conneaut witnesses talked about Spalding's story being a migration via land and sea. And there is no way all 10 lost tribes in millions or whatever large numbers they were alleged to be could have jn theory or by any stretch of one's imagination been theorized to migrate to the Americas by boat..only in theory a portion could. Hence Spalding may have had an explanation for what happened to the lost tribes right after 723 B.C. , but that by the time Lehi and Nephi migrate later on, they as the principal characters are used along with whomever they are migrating with to be representatives of the lost tribes in order that the story will be about Am Indians being their ultimate descendants.

There is no way Glenn that all 8 witnesses are confused and mixing up Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek...with something they may have heard or read such as Ethan Smith's mass migration theory over the Bering Str. There is nothing at all about lost tribes in MSCC. (by the way..I am assuming based on what you've said that Ethan Smith's theory involves a mass migration of all 10 tribes..whatever their alleged numbers)

And you may ask why didn't the Conneaut witnesses get into more details...well there would be little purpose to that. Spalding's manuscript wasn't around to verify their recollection. So why should they bother with all sorts of details. A general brief concise outline of what they recalled with a few details is all that was necessary. The point of the exercise for them was simply whether or not they identified Spalding's writings in the Book of Mormon.

[_MCB]

The Congregational clergyman Jedidiah Morse came close to articulating twentieth-century views when he suggested that the two continents were at one time actually connected by a small "neck of land" which had since been submerged under the [45] ocean.

And if you go on to Morse's sources, you will find [da-boom-diddy-boom-boom] Clavigero and Mallet's "Northern Antiquities," a history of Scandinavia. Morse's books were apparently used as textbooks, so quite easily found.

[_GlennThigpen]

You did not address my post Glenn, did I correctly identify your argument or not?



You assume that everyone in Spalding's day would have believed if they believed in the lost tribe myth ..that all 10 tribes migrated to the Americas en masse. If that is what the conneaut witnesses believed and Spalding must have believed...they why would they say in the same statement...the book showed Am. Ind. are descendants of lost tribes..and he brought them from Jerusalem under the command of Nephi and Lehi?

I do not assume that everyone would believe that. I am only pointing out what the witnesses explicitly said.

You know what Glenn..perhaps you could summarize your argument as succinctly as you can..and then I'll see if I'm missing something. Keep in mind I am not arguing against a Bering str..migration..if that's what you think.

marge, my point is very succint. The witnesses averred that Solomon Spalding's story was about the lost tribes. The actual method of how they got to the Americas, "by land and sea", is not my argument. I only pointed out that it was the prevailing idea during the period of time we are talking about. The lost tribes theory envisions the migration of maybe millions of people by whatever means to the Americas to become the ancestors of the American Indians. The idea was propounded by many with religious training. The statements by the witnesses are echoing sentiments expressed by authors like Ethan Smith in View of the Hebrews. There has been no evidence brought to bear that would give one reason to believe that Solomon had any different viewpoint, or that the witnesses understood a lost tribes story to be any different from the prevailong view.
The Book of Mormon has nothing in it that would give anyone reason to believe that it is a lost tribes migrating to the Americas and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians.

Ok I've cont'd looking into this and did a search and came across Dan Vogel's book http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/indian/indian3.htm#Book

so let me quote:

"Early writers experimented with several possible Jewish migrations: a flight from Sennacherib about 700 B.C.; navigation during the time of Solomon; or a flight from the Romans at the destruction of Jerusalem around A.D. 70.29 But the theory which received perhaps the greatest support and captured the popular imagination in Joseph Smith's day was that which asserted that the Indians were the lost ten tribes of Israel. The theory is based on the apocryphal book 2 Esdras (written about A.D. 100), and included in some nineteenth-century editions of the Bible, [40] which mentions the Assyrian captivity of the northern kingdom of Israel around 734 B.C. An angel shows Ezra a vision of a crowd of people, explaining:..."

So not everyone in Spalding and Smith's day..thought that via the Bering str by foot was the only way ancestor of Am. Ind migrated.

The Conneaut witnesses talked about Spalding's story being a migration via land and sea. And there is no way all 10 lost tribes in millions or whatever large numbers they were alleged to be could have jn theory or by any stretch of one's imagination been theorized to migrate to the Americas by boat..only in theory a portion could. Hence Spalding may have had an explanation for what happened to the lost tribes right after 723 B.C. , but that by the time Lehi and Nephi migrate later on, they as the principal characters are used along with whomever they are migrating with to be representatives of the lost tribes in order that the story will be about Am Indians being their ultimate descendants.

That is the point of the bering straits. There are many different theories on that. One is that a land bridge existed at one point in times and they walked over. Another is an ice bridge existed. And thirdly, that canoes or the like were used, since the Bering Straits are only thirty-four miles wide at the narrowest point. Those are not my theories, I am just pointing them out. But it does not matter what the theory was, what matters is what the Conneaut witnesses believed.

Yes, there were many theories abot how the American indians came to the Americas. That has never been a disputed point. But, the prevailing theory, as pointed out by Dan, is a lost tribes theory.

There is no way Glenn that all 8 witnesses are confused and mixing up Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek...with something they may have heard or read such as Ethan Smith's mass migration theory over the Bering Str. There is nothing at all about lost tribes in MSCC. (by the way..I am assuming based on what you've said that Ethan Smith's theory involves a mass migration of all 10 tribes..whatever their alleged numbers)

I agree that there is no lost tribes story in the manuscript that is at Oberlin college. And none in the Book of Mormon. Somebody is confused.

And you may ask why didn't the Conneaut witnesses get into more details...well there would be little purpose to that. Spalding's manuscript wasn't around to verify their recollection. So why should they bother with all sorts of details. A general brief concise outline of what they recalled with a few details is all that was necessary. The point of the exercise for them was simply whether or not they identified Spalding's writings in the Book of Mormon.

marge, the Conneaut witnesses did not get into much detail because they did not remember what Spalding's book was really all about. They were told that the Book of Mormon was a rip off of that manuscript and went looking for a few key words and voila, yep, Hurlbut was right, those wrods are there, and now I remember they were in Spaldin's romance. He started it in 1810 says Oliver Smith. I shoud know, because he was staying with me at the time. No, no, says Matilda Davison, it was in August of 1812. I should know, I am his wife and I was living with him at the time.
And John Spalding says that it was about the lost tribes, as does three other witnesses, but none of the other witnesses mention those lost tribes. And the Redick McKee says it was all about Canaan before Joshua invaded. Some of them say that Solomon wrote the story just for his own amusement with no thought as to obtaining a profit, but others said that he envisioned publishing the book and making a handsome profit.
One witness in his first statement has Nephi and Lehi coming over together, but late has Lehi coming over from Chaldea as the leader of the Jaredites and Nephi coming from Jerusalem much later. But none of those witnesses are confused and all of their statements line up perfectly and do not contradict each other in the least.

The witnesses did not offer details because they did not remember details, or what the book was really about. When they (John Spalding) tried to supply details they are ludicrous to the extreme.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

...
You appear to have lost interest in the subject of Cowdery
contributions to the Book of Mormon text
...

Still more evidence that the 1829 Oliver Cowdery "revelation"
prefigured the Book of Mormon text, and was not likely
copied from that same text:


March(?) 1829 Oliver Cowdery revelation:

Now may the grace of God the Father and
our Lord Jesus Christ be and abide with you all
...Amen



June 1829 Oliver Cowdery letter:

Now may the grace of God the Father and of
our Lord Jesus Christ be and abide with you all
Amen



June(?) 1829 dictation -- Ether 12:41:

And now... the Grace of God the Father, and also
the Lord Jesus Christ... be, and abide in you
forever. Amen.



June(?) 1829 dictation -- Moroni 7:2:

And now... by the grace of God, the Father, and
our Lord Jesus Christ...



June(?) 1829 dictation -- Moroni 9:26:

And may the grace of God the Father...and
our Lord Jesus Christ... be, and abide with you
forever. Amen.


Or, did Oliver just emulate those long-dead Nephite prophets?

Dale

Dale


Oliver Cowdery’s revelation most likely dates to June 1829, after the move to Fayette and after Joseph Smith’s revelation dealing with the same subject (D&C 18). Joseph Smith’s revelation had assigned David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery the job of building up the church by selecting twelve apostles, who were to ordain priests and teachers. This left Whitmer and Cowdery out of the hierarchy. OC (and apparently the Whitmers) seems to have rejected portions of the revelation, particularly the notion that apostle is an office in the church. He countered with his own revelation, which played on the language of Joseph Smith’s revelation and Book of Mormon passages. More importantly, OC affirms that he was called as an apostle like Paul—that is, charismatically rather than institutionally. He and Whitmer were Book of Mormon apostles by virtue of their visionary experiences. In OC’s revelation, he and Whitmer are to ordain priests and teachers. Probably because of this resistance, Joseph Smith delayed calling twelve until 1835. Meanwhile, D&C 20—known as the articles and covenants of the church of Christ—was a compromise with OC and the Whitmers, which explained that an Elder is an apostle.

OC’s June letter also likely post-dates D&C 18, and has been used by some scholars (both LDS and non-LDS) to pin down the date of the revelation.

Both Ether and Moroni were likely dictated in Harmony, Pennsylvania, prior to David Whitmer’s arrival to move Joseph Smith and OC to Fayette, where it was anticipated that there would be a group of believers there eager to receive instruction. If this were not the case, there would be a problem in the distribution of the average number of pages per day Joseph Smith dictated, which has been determined by myself and others comes to about 8 pages per day. To the already crowded month of June 1829, one would have to add one or two more books. According to Whitmer, a man they met on the road to Fayette was later identified by Joseph Smith as “Moroni” on his way to “Cumorah” with the plates, which possibly indicates that the end of the Book of Mormon was already known. The revelation that instructed Joseph Smith to replace the lost 116-page MS with the small plates dates to May 1829, apparently as Joseph Smith was contemplating what to do about the missing beginning. If he had two books left to dictate before returning to the beginning, this revelation would not be need for another month.

[_Dan Vogel]

That is no where evident in the text of the statements. You are trying to equate ten tribes consisting of maybe four million people to five people of one tribe that are not portrayed as part of a lost tribe. The Book of Mormon explicitly states that it is not about the lost tribes. I will quote Aron Wright once again where he said that Solomon's story was "a history he was writing, of the lost tribes of Israel." There is no way that you can logically equate ten and millions with one and five. I realize that is the very best explanation that you can come up with, but it is bereft of logic and reason. The Book of Mormon starts off about a family, not about lost tribes.

Glenn we are at an impasse on this issue. Obviously the witnesses appreciated that all 10 tribes with how many millions you said they were estimated to be could not possibly have traveled to America. Obviously what they meant is that the story was about American Indians who descended from a few people who came from the Middle East who were descendants of lost tribes.

That’s not obvious at all. They were alluding to the lost tribe theory of Indian origins. This was a very specific theory. The Book of Mormon rejected the theory, but maintained the Jewish origin of the Indians. The object of such speculations was to connect the Indians with anyone in the Old World, give them souls, and make them possible candidates for Christian salvation. Because it was a mystery as to how the Indians came to the New World, some speculated that the Indian were not related to Adam, that they were in fact pre-Adamites, and therefore soul-less. Connecting the Indian to the Old World was often an attempt to save the Indian from annihilation. Believers tried to connect them to the tower of Babel and the ten tribes. Ethan Smith was not only trying to save them, but he was also justifying the efforts of Christian missionaries. The added incentive was fulfilling Bible prophecy. The ten tribe theory became so popular and seemed to have much evidence in its favor that Joseph Smith created an explanation that took advantage of the evidence but rejected the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha appeared in many Protestant Bibles, but was just beginning to be questioned by Evangelicals, particularly the American Bible Society.

Because of the prevailing ten tribe theory, the Book of Mormon was often confused with it. This confusion still exists. Martin E. Marty, one of the foremost scholars of American Religion, made that mistake in print. The main cause of this confusion is that the person making the mistake hasn’t read the Book of Mormon. The same can be said of the Conneaut witnesses.

Of course, Lehi was not a descendant of the lost tribes. Rather, he was of the tribe of Joseph, which tribe was one of the ten who were lost. The two things are incompatible. One can’t reference the lost tribe theory, while at the same time saying Lehi’s ancestry is connected to that theory in any meaningful way. The Book of Esdras has nothing to do with Lehi. No one espousing the ten tribe theory could connect Lehi or his story to it. If one were a believer in the ten tribe theory of Indian origins, it was to have a text for that belief. To go outside the text to explain Indian origins would defeat the appeal to authority—that is, unless the new text was also revelation—something Spalding would not have done.

[_MCB]

To go outside the text to explain Indian origins would defeat the appeal to authority—that is, unless the new text was also revelation—something Spalding would not have done.

I disagree with that. Take a look at his statement about his personal beliefs at the end of Oberlin Manuscript Story. He would have been very comfortable with writing a parody of religious fundamentalism.

[_GlennThigpen]

Some time line problems for the “Manuscript Found”

Let's start with the widow, Matilda Spalding Davison. She says that Solomon started writing his story about the time of Hull's surrender of Detroit to the English, which happened in mid August of 1812. And after his death in 1816, she said that the manuscript fell into her hands and she carefully preserved it . This information came from a letter purported to be from Davison which was published in several newspapers. An LDS missionary later contacted her and asked if that was her letter. She stated that it was not her letter, but in the main, what was printed was correct.

This corroborated the story by Josiah Spalding who said that the war of 1812 caused some sever financial hardships for the two of them because of some land speculations that they had jointly engaged in. The upshot of it was that Josiah went to stay with Solomon in Conneaut. For how long he does not say. But he did state that Solomon began to compose his story during that time. Since the war started in June of 1812, Josiah could started staying with Solomon any time after that. This dovetails very neatly with Matilda Davison's statement that Solomon started writing the book for his own amusement and to entertain the neighbors. Josiah also said that he was writing the story for his own amusement.

John Spalding notes that Solomon moved to the Conneaut area in 1809 and that he himself moved there in 1810. He notes visiting Solomon about three years thereafter and found him writing his novel. If he meant at three years after he himself had moved to Ohio, that would have put it in 1813 but two plus years would have put him visiting Solomon in late 1812. John's wife, Martha, says that she was at Solomon's house shortly before he left the area (for Pittsburgh). It is very probable that John and Martha are talking about the same visit. Solomon had written enough of the story by then that he could read many passages to John. John stated that the Solomon intended to have the story published to pay off his debts. Martha does not say anything about the purpose.

Henry Lake says that he moved to the area in late 1810 and formed a partnership with Solomon to rebuild a forge. He says that “He very frequently read to me from a manuscript which he was writing, which he entitled the "Manuscript Found,” which intimates that Solomon was already writing the book while he and Solomon were still working on the forge. Lake says that “He wished me to assist him in getting his production printed, alleging that a book of that kind would meet with a rapid sale. I designed doing so, but the forge not meeting our anticipations, we failed in business, when I declined having any thing to do with the publication of the book.” This puts the writing process starting some time before the business failure, which conflicts with Davison's statement on two counts. (1) The time line for the start of the story, and the reason for writing it.

John Miller said that he was employed by Henry Lake and Solomon Spalding in 1811 and boarded with Solomon for some time. It was there that he was exposed to Solomon's story and read it as often as leisure would permit. He also stated that Solomon planned to publish it and use the proceeds to pay off his debts. This conflicts with Josiah and Matilda's statements as to when Solomon began writing his story and the purpose.

Aron Wrights statement is too ambiguous to attempt to place a time frame around the “I was at his house once.” If Matilda is correct, then it would have had to be August of 1812 or later. Aron said that Solomon began the story for his won amusement, but says nothing about any plans for publication, although he claims to have had many intimate conversations with Solomon.

Oliver Smith said that Solomon boarded with him for about six months when he first came to the area. John Spalding pegged that time frame as 1809. It could have been late 1809, but the exact time frame is not as important as what Oliver says. “All his leisure hours were occupied in writing a historical novel, founded upon the first settlers of this country.” This statement places the beginning of the novel in 1809 or maybe early 1810, which again conflicts with Josiah's statement and Matilda's statement. He also stated that he saw Solomon just before he left the area and that Solomon planned to have the story published.

Nahum Howard's statement is too vague too establish any time frame.

Artemas Cunningham says that he went to visit Solomon on October of 1811 to try to get payment for a debt that Solomon owed him. Solomon showed him the story then and said that he was planning on having it published and once that happened, he would be able to pay Artemas and all his other debts. This time frame is in conflict with the statements by Davison and Josiah. on both counts. Artemas could have been misremembering the year. If he actually meant to say 1812, then that would have been right about the time frame Spalding is though to have moved to Pittsburg. However, Artemas does not mention that pesky war.


I only mention the stated purpose that Solomon was supposed to have been writing the story to illustrate some inconsistencies in the stories of the witnesses. Those inconsistencies are not fatal, by themselves. But it is interesting that Redick McKee, one of the Amity witnesses also said of Solomon's story “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.”

However, the time line as to when Solomon actually started writing the story is problematic. We have two independent witnesses who put the beginning of the story in 1812, around the middle of August, in the case of Solomon's widow. Both of those witnesses have as a backdrop memorable events. Josiah, the war of 1812 which began in June and with Matilda, it was Hull's surrender of Detroit.

If their recollections are accurate, then several of the other witnesses are very inaccurate. An August beginning date would give precious little time for all of those neighbors to feast repeatedly upon the words of that story and deeply encode those names, etc.

Matilda Davison said that the manuscript fell into her hands. She carefully preserved it. Put it into a trunk and left the trunk with a friend in New York. That was the manuscript that Hurlbut retrieved. And we know what that manuscript is not. Truly, Solomon wrote other manuscripts in the form of sermons and short stories, such as The Frogs of Wyndham for his daughter, but there is no mention of any other manuscript approaching the length of the “Manuscript Conneaut Creek” which is the “Manuscript Found”

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

To go outside the text to explain Indian origins would defeat the appeal to authority—that is, unless the new text was also revelation—something Spalding would not have done.

I disagree with that. Take a look at his statement about his personal beliefs at the end of Oberlin Manuscript Story. He would have been very comfortable with writing a parody of religious fundamentalism.

Not if he wanted to keep his light hid under a bushel.

Glenn

[_marg]

marge, my point is very succint. The witnesses averred that Solomon Spalding's story was about the lost tribes.

We have a difference of opinion here Glenn. What you are saying is that the witnesses are describing the story being focused on or "about" the lost tribes and that’s not the consensus I find. The overall consensus is that it was focused in the "settlement in the america’s" by a group who descended from the lost tribes in the Middle East. Just as even though they mention the story was about who the ancestors are of present day American Indians..the words American Indians weren’t likely in the story nor was it "about" American Indians.

John Spalding: . "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"

(John is not saying the story is “about” “lost tribes” the story is about the first settlers of America.)

John Spalding later 1851 statement: "he conceived a design of writing a historical romance upon a
subject then much mooted in the scientific world, the origin of the Indian
tribes. This design he carried into execution between 1809 and 1812, and
the produce of his labors was a novel entitled the ‘Manuscript Found’. In
this work he mentioned that the American continent was colonized by
Lehi, the son of Japheth, who sailed from Chaldea soon after the great dispersion,
and landed near the isthmus of Darien. Lehi’s descendants, who
were styled Jaredites, spread gradually to the north, bearing with them the
remains of the antedeluvian science, and building those cities the ruins of
which we see in Central America, in the fortifications which are scattered
along the Cordilleras. Long after this, Nephi, of the tribe of Joseph, emigrated
to America with a large portion of the ten tribes whom Shalmanezer
led away from Palestine, and scattered among the Midian cities. This remnant
of Joseph was soon after its arrival divided into two nations, the
Nephites and the Lamanites."

(In this statement John describes that nephi emigrated with a large portion of the ten tribes…he may be correct or he may be after almost 20 years of thinking about/rehearsing in his mind this detail be confusing his beliefs or understanding of lost tribes versus what was in Spalding’s story. It’s hard to say because over time, with repeated rehearsing to himself ..imagination can take over and at this point with diminished memory especially on details he may be injecting his beliefs over time. How large a group he has in mind is not clear)

Martha Spalding: he was then
writing a historical novel founded upon the first settlers of America. He
represented them as an enlightened and warlike people. He had for many
years contended that the aboriginies of America were the descendants of
some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in
question.

(She is not saying the story was focused on or “about “lost tribes” but rather it was about first settlers of America.)

Aron Wright: When at his house, one
day, he showed and read to me a history he was writing, of the lost tribes of
Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America, and that the
Indians were their descendants. He traced their journey from Jerusalem to
America,

(In this one it appears he is saying the story is "about" the Lost tribes in America.. but I have a comment on that later. )

Henry Lake:" This book represented the American Indians
as the descendants of the lost tribes, gave account of their leaving Jerusalem,"

(He’s not saying the story is “about” the lost tribes.)

Redick Mckee:

“what purported to be a veritable
history of the nations or tribes, who inhabited Canaan when, or before, that
country was invaded by the Israelites under Joshua. He described with
great particularity, their numbers, customs, modes of life, their wars, strategems,
victories, and defeats, &c. His style was flowing and grammatical,
though gaunt and abrupt; very like the story of the ‘Maccabees’ and other
apochryphal books in the old bibles. “


Redick McKee another statement:It purported to give a history of the ten tribes, their disputes and dissensions concerning the religion of their fathers, their division into two parties; one called Nephites the other Lamanites; their bloody wars, followed by reunion and migration via the Red Sea to the Pacific Ocean; their residence for a long time in China; their crossing the ocean by Behrings Straits in North America, thus becoming the progenitors of the Indians who have inhabited or now live on this continent.

(In this he elaborates that the story was of the lost tribes in the Middle East their migration through Asia with battles between them and then a group migrate from China to Bering strs and over to America)

Summary: Most of them don’t talk about the story being focused on the “lost tribes” or simply about “lost tribes” John in his later years recalls a historical account going back to “son of Japheth” and Redick MeKee who was with Spalding later than the Conneaut witnesses describes a story that gave a detailed account of lost tribes within Middle east and a migration through China and then after their battles, the survivors join forces and migrate up to Bering Str and over to America.

None of them other than Aron Wright describe Spalding’s story within America as involving “lost tribes". In America the characters are described as descendants of “lost tribes” not about lost tribes. But if we look at Aron Wright’s statement he says:” He traced their journey from Jerusalem to
America, as it is given in the Book of Mormon”. So although he says the story in America is of “lost tribes” his understanding is of a small group going to America because the Book of Mormon is only about a small group and he points out “as it is given in the Book of Mormon.

So Glenn none of them are describing Spalding’s story in America as being about lost tribes, rather they are describing for the most part a historical account of the lineage for American Indians. The bulk of the story occurring in America with a small group who migrated there and that this group are descendants of lost tribes from the Middle East. Mckee recalls a story further back in time..and it may well be Spalding's story continued with more details going back further in time after he left the conneaut witnesses.

I'll continue later...I'm sorry I haven't read the rest of your post, but I already wrote up the above response and then lost it, so I'll post and continue later.

[_GlennThigpen]

So Glenn none of them are describing Spalding’s story in America as being about lost tribes, rather they are describing for the most part a historical account of the lineage for American Indians. The bulk of the story occurring in America with a small group who migrated there and that this group are descendants of lost tribes from the Middle East. Mckee recalls a story further back in time..and it may well be Spalding's story continued with more details going back further in time after he left the conneaut witnesses.

I'll continue later...I'm sorry I haven't read the rest of your post, but I already wrote up the above response and then lost it, so I'll post and continue later.

I actually did not word that correctly, at least that sentence. Spalding's story was supposedly not just about the lost tribes, but about the lost tribes coming to the Americas and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians. However, that is just a confabulation thrown in by four of the witnesses who did not really remember what Spalding's story was about. However you twist and turn it, the Book of Mormon is not about the lost tribes, not even one of the lost tribes, coming to America and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians. The only such story that Solomon ever wrote is in the Library at Oberlin college.

Glenn