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

[_Dan Vogel]

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.

The Book of Mormon isn’t a parody. As I said, the Book of Mormon is a rejection of the ten tribe theory, but it’s also an attempt to save the Israelite-Indian designation at a time when the scriptural basis (the Apocrypha) was being questioned. Writing something like the Book of Mormon, which is a serious endeavor to establish Indian-Israelite origins and inspire missionaries to convert the Indian en masse, is an odd way to mock the ten tribe theory. And what would have attracted Rigdon to such a MS, if that were the case? Given Spalding’s disposition towards the Bible and Christianity expressed in his personal statement referenced by you above, it is difficult to believe he would have written anything about the ten tribes, especially as an attack on religion. Spalding concludes his statement (as Glenn noted): “Such being my view of the subject I suffer my candle to remain under … [a bushel], nor make exertions to dissipate their happy delusions.”

[Guest]

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.

No that's not what they describe Glenn..they describe the American Indians being descendants of lost tribes, none of them say...all the lost tribes migrate. Aron Wright is the only one who seems to imply that but when one considers that he also mentions "just like in the Book of Mormon" and in the Book of Mormon it's about a small group who are descendents of lost tribes..it would appear he is consistent with the rest of the. McKee talks about a story of Lost tribes in the middle east..and over to China and then a group after battling going to Darien strs ..correction I meant Bering Strs and migrating to America...but Mckee is with Spalding later and he was still working on it.

But none of them talk about all the Lost tribes migrating to America. And although that may have been the understanding of Ethan Smith..what they were recalling is Spalding's story and Spalding it appears based on what they say, only had a group of descendants migrating to America.

You can not assume the Spalding copied Ethan Smith's mass migration through Bering Strts. Spalding was creating his own historical account. He could do whatever he wished in creating that. Why should he have them all migrating...that would make for a much more difficult storyline..as opposed to having only a few of which he could focus and elaborate on and then their descendents.

You are looking for anything at all to dismiss the witnesses...faulty memory, lying ,some inconsistencies. Given the overall recall of all of them, and the numbers of them, as well as the particulars they remembered which matched up to the Book of Mormon..the only explanation is that they were all lying. Faulty memory doesn't cut it--they are too consistent with remember a story which matched with the Book of Mormon in some particulars and the story they were exposed to they heard, read, discussed..it wasn't a brief one time exposure for them. The inconsistencies can be explained and there is just not enough of them with significance to override clear memories of names, phrasing, some details.

Let's just say for example they knew Ethan Smith's theory ..then they would have known ..it was about "all the lost tribes" migrating to America. So why would they even bother to mention "lost tribes" because it is barely even mentioned in the Book of Mormon and when it is the lost tribes are elsewhere than America. And if a lost tribes story in America couldn't be about a small group migrating and their descendants then why say it was. I realize you think they simply didn't appreciate the Book of Mormon storyline, but if the Book of Mormon barely mentions lost tribes..what would make them do so. You dln't think they appreciate the Mormons being intensely interested and wanting to discount their statements? They would have appreciated that, and if they were lying would not have said anything which contradicted or appeared to contradict the Book of Mormon. But instead they do mention lost tribes, despite it barely being mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

So it doesn't make sense if they were liars, conspiring ...to even mention lost tribes. And as far as confusing their memories with Ethan Smith's theory, well what about the phrase "and it came to pass, and biblical language, and recall of specific names due to refreshing their memories with the Book of Mormon as a retrieval cue..those aren't confusable items.

You are "data mining" rather than looking at the big picture with the intent on dismissing their statements. You are trying to find inconsistencies between their recalls..anything will do, you aren't interested in the consistencies. Well guess what..inconsistencies can still exist..they don't necessary have perfect memory on everything in fact they likely don't given the lapse of time. And they may be confusing some of what they recall which may not have been encoded well because it may not have been discussed much ..confusing it with their own knowledge..or they may not have been careful enough in articulating their recall - for various reasons there may be some inaccuracies..but the consensus is they without a doubt they observed Spalding's writings in the Book of Mormon.

And far as lying goes there is nothing for them to benefit from that. Giving statements was a hassle and inconvenience for them..and they were approached for statements, but other than giving a few statements they didn't bother much with this whole affair.

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.

They don't say it's about the lost tribes..it's about the settlement in America. And contrary to what you say,even in the Book of Mormon...Lehi and company are descendents of a lost tribe.

As far as MSCC--- they say that's not the one they were referring to..it has no bibical style in writing, no jews coming from Jerusalem, and the Indians were already in America settled. So that's not the manuscript they described in their statements.

[_MCB]

The Book of Mormon isn’t a parody.

The Book of Mormon isn't a parody. Even though Spalding (not Rigdon, or Cowdery, or Smith) kept his unbelief hidden, he had every right to compose some subtle satire on the abuse of religion. And even believers have the responsibility to fight the abuse of religion. Isn't it the biggest excuse for those who become agnostic?

They say Mormons don't have a sense of humor. If they did, they could see the attempted jokes (and satire) in the Book of Mormon, and they would no longer be LDS. Smith and Co. turned a satire into something that was regarded as God's Gospel Truth. Sort of turning Monte Python into a religion. OOOPS-- some do regard it as so.

[_marg]

The Book of Mormon isn’t a parody.

The Book of Mormon isn't a parody. Even though Spalding (not Rigdon, or Cowdery, or Smith) kept his unbelief hidden, he had every right to compose some subtle satire on the abuse of religion. And even believers have the responsibility to fight the abuse of religion. Isn't it the biggest excuse for those who become agnostic?

They say Mormons don't have a sense of humor. If they did, they could see the attempted jokes (and satire) in the Book of Mormon, and they would no longer be LDS. Smith and Co. turned a satire into something that was regarded as God's Gospel Truth. Sort of turning Monte Python into a religion. OOOPS-- some do regard it as so.

And being a satire all the more reason why Spalding wouldn't be concerned with attempting to create a true historical account, emulating in all details a current in his day highly accepted theory ..that of a "mass" migration of all 10 lost tribes to America. There is no reason why he wouldn't take artistic license to create his own unique fictional account.

[_marg]

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.

Solomon was writing a fictional historical account with the focus being 'how the Am Indians got to America' and "who their ancestors were". Don't confuse that with Ethan Smith's account which is a hypothesis of what he thought truly occurred. Spalding's friends and neighbours appreciated his account was fictional..even though he may have speculated openly it might one day be taken literally and believed by some.

It would not be puzzling to them that he didn't present millions of people of lost tribes migrating to America..even if they did know Ethan Smith's theory. You are looking at this as if Solomon was writing true history, and that he wouldn't deviate from current Jewish origin theories such as of Ethan Smith. There was no reason why he wouldn't deviate and create his own fictional account which differed to Ethan Smith's or othe'Relief Society hypothetical theories.

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.

They don't say "lost tribes migrated to America"...they say the story endeavoured to show Am. Indians are descendants of lost tribes or a few" and it does appear to me that is the case with the Book of Mormon. Take out those few lines about lost tribes living elsewhere which would have been inserted by Smith & Co and the characters who migrate are descendants through lineage of a lost tribe.

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.

The Conneaut witnesses believed Spalding was writing a fictional account. Those theories by Ethan Smith were speculations about what actually happened. There is no reason Spalding in writing a fictional tale was limited to assuming actual prevalent theories of the day and nor would his friends and family think he was limited to trying to write a true actual history. He was writing fiction and they all appreciated that. Why do you assume he was limited to writing a story which matched popular scientific theories of the day in all respects?

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.

And I suppose Dan too, thinks Spalding was limited to writing a story which matched the scientific popular theories of the day? If so I disagree with Dan.

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.

If you take out the 3 mentions of lost tribes living elsewhere ..there is a migrating group to America who are descendants of a lost tribe..so there is some mention.

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.

And all those comments you make can be addressed. Dates are highly confusable,it is difficult to assign events to specific dates. He was writing essentially one story..which we are looking at as 2 but essentially MSCC is a later historical tale in time than Manuscript Found. The witnesses may have difficulty assigning dates to when exactly he began or was working on which storyline. Memories over time, become more about generalities than details, some details might be misremembered but then some details if a retrieval cue is giving can elicit clear recall of details forgotten. His wife didn't take much interest in his stories however, she did note biblical language in a story he was reading to neighbours in Aug 1812. Redick McKee was with Spalding at a later date, he recall might include further additional writing by Spalding.

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.

That one witness you are talking about is John Spalding and his later statement is about another 20 years after his first statement which itself was about 20 years after having listened to Spalding read. In the period from 1833 to his later statement he may have tried to recall more details and may ahve started to imagine details based upon his biblical knowledge. That's a possibility ...or he may be remembering correctly.

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.

Yes they said details on the whole they'd forgotten but on some details the Book of Mormon brought back those details clearly to them. As far as John Spalding I'm not sure how ludicrous his second statement is. He is recalling another 20 years later and details as he rehearses them in his mind over time, may be confused with common knowledge he has. In his first statement he recalled "and it came to pass" and biblical language..that's not confusable.

[_marg]

That’s not obvious at all. They{the witnesses] were alluding to the lost tribe theory of Indian origins. This was a very specific theory.

They were alluding to Spalding's fictional tale..not Ethan Smith's Jewish Origins theory. Sheesh. See my post to Glenn.

The Book of Mormon rejected the theory,

Why because it had 3 inserts mentioning the lost tribes lived elsewhere and Jesus was going to visit them?

but maintained the Jewish origin of the Indians.

Consistent with Spalding's fictional account ..the main characters are descendant of a lost tribe.

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.

Spalding was writing a fictional account...I see like Glenn you are confusing that with Ethan Smith's endeavours of trying to theorize a scientific account.

Believers tried to connect them to the tower of Babel and the ten tribes.

Good for them

Ethan Smith was not only trying to save them, but he was also justifying the efforts of Christian missionaries.

Good for him

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.

So Smith essentially used the same fictional theory of Spalding's but Smith presented it as true history..just as Ethan Smith had done.

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.

No the confusion rests with you and Glenn who assume the Conneaut witnessses didn't appreciate Spalding was writing fiction. You seem to think they thought Spalding's lost tribe ancestry fictional tale for Am. Indian had to match up to the popular theory of Ethan Smith's scientific theory.

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.

I see so...descendants are viewed as being of a lost tribe not as being "descendants" of a lost tribe. if you don't mind ..in order to differentiate the original people who are allegedly of a lost tribe back in 723 B.C. from their later descendants I'm going to stick with my terminology and refer to them as being descended..

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.

If you could give an executive summary of the above, in clearer english I might understand what you are talking about..though I don't count on it. I think you are attempting to try to make things sound complicated when they aren't.

[_marg]

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.

Ok, let's start with Matilida Davison ...she does not say he started writing MF at that point. What she recalls is neighbours coming in to listen to him read and she affixes that to that date.

idea of giving a historical sketch of this long lost race. Their extreme antiquity of
course would let him to write in the most ancient style; and as the Old Testament
is the most ancient book in the world, he imitated its style as nearly
as possible. His sole object in writing this historical romance was to amuse
himself and his neighbors. This was about the year 1812. Hull’s surrender
at Detroit occurred near the same time, and I recollect the date well from
that circumstance. As he progressed in his narrative, the neighbors would
come in from time to time to hear portions of it read, and a great interest in
the work was excited among them."

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.

But he does not (and let's keep in mind he's 90 years old at the time he's making this statement ..and about 43 years after 1812) but he does not explicitly say Spalding began the manuscript he recalls. Nor does he explicitly say he went to see and stay with Spalding after the war began. Because of his extreme old age...I'm leery about his memory. I think he remembers MSCC..but I think dates are confusing to him and what happened when he might be mistaken about. I think some memories might have disappeared.

He says: "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. "

Matilida said: At the time of our marriagee resided in Cherry Valley, New York. From this place we removed to New Salem, Ashtabula county, Ohio, sometimes called Conneaut, as it is
situated upon Conneaut creek. Shortly after our removal to this place, his
health sunk, and he was laid aside from active labors.

So it appears Spalding's health which failed shortly after arriving in Conneaut was also a contributing factor for financial difficulties. And Josiah's comment about the war was to explain it as a contributing factor for financial difficulties. Josiah does not explicitly say he went to see him and stay with him specifically when the war broke out. The sentence follows implying that to be the case but it could be a function of poor writing. Couple that with he's 90 years old ..recalling 43 years previous..and I'm leery about relying upon his memories.

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.

Davison does not say he started MF in 1812. Obviously she was aware he was writing a manuscript to get published.

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.

It doesn't conflict with Martha..but it does with 90 year old Josiah.

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.

Dates are highly confusable. My guess is Solomon was writing Manuscript Found by end of 1810 and that Josiah perhaps read MSCC while Solomon may have been writing MF. Solomon may not have read MF to him and Josiah may not have looked at it either. Or if he did at all, it wasn't for any length of time. I also am leery on Josiah's memory ...the most of all of them. I think it's possible that some of his memory on somethings may have completely disappeared due to age.

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.”

Well Glenn, did McKee know Spalding after Spalding had submitted his book for publication, if so due to the rejection he may have informed McKee it was amusement purposes. It is such a minor point.

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.

Matilida does not say he began the manuscript then..and Josiah is 90 years old and may have totally forgotten MF even if he was exposed to it.

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.

Right so August 1812 is not when he began MF.

[quote=Glenn"]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”[/quote]

MSCC is not the one...since witnesses say he went back further in time. And witnesses remember a story whose purpose was to account for how Am. Indian came to America. It was to be a tale that people might end up actually believing to be true history..there was nothing to actually believe of any historical importance in MSCC.

Rather than a separate post Glenn I want to make a few additional comments about 90 year old Josiah's statement which should be noted.

, but my recollection and faculty of mind is so much impaired with age and infirmity, being within two months of ninety years of age, I can give but a broken narrative.

He is quite aware he has an impaired memory and forgets things i.e "broken narrative"

He began to compose his novel, which it is conjectured that the Mormons made use of in forming their Bible. Indeed, although there was nothing in it of Mormonism or that favored error

He apparently has not look at or read the Book of Mormon..therefore if he's forgotten MF due to old age or combined the two MSCC & MF together in memory..he's using no retrieval cue.

]My brother told me that a young man told him that he had a wonderful dream. He dreamed that he himself (if I recollect right) opened a great mound, where there were human bones. There he found a written history that would answer the inquiry respecting the civilized people that once inhabited that country until they were destroyed by the savages.

MSCC does not answer the "inquiry respecting the civilized people"..where did the come from...so that part seems to apply to MF.

The author of it he brings from the Old World, but from what nation I do not recollect; I think not a Jew; nor do I recollect how long since, but I think before the Christian Era. He was a man of superior learning suited to that day. He went to sea, lost his point of compass, and finally landed on the American shore; I think near the mouth of the Mississippi River.

He's recalling the story of MSCC..though he's not sure. It would have been interesting to get his take after looking at the Book of Mormon to see if it brought back any further memories.

So I think it's possible that Josiah due to his age...is combining MSCC and MF but remembers more of MSCC and forgets MF. Old people on average tend to have problems with source memories as well as temporal memory and memory diminishes overall but with some things still being remembered well.

[_GlennThigpen]

Ok, let's start with Matilida Davison ...she does not say he started writing MF at that point. What she recalls is neighbours coming in to listen to him read and she affixes that to that date.

marge, I am going to quote the pertinent portion of the Davison statement:

Numerous implements were found, and other articles evincing great skill in the arts. Mr. Spaulding being an educated man, and passionately fond of history, took a lively interest in these developments of antiquity; and in order to beguile the hours of retirement and furnish employment for his lively imagination, he conceived the idea of giving a historical sketch of this long lost race. Their extreme antiquity of course would lead him to write in the most ancient style, and as the Old Testament is the most ancient book in the world, he imitated its style as nearly as possible. His sole object in writing this historical romance was to amuse himself and his neighbors. This was about the year 1812. Hull's surrender at Detroit occurred near the same time, and I recollect the date well from that circumstance. As he progressed in his narrative the neighbors would come in from time to time to hear portions read, and a great interest in the work was excited among them.

Now I am going to quote your argument from that in that a previous post:

And then there is Matilda Davison who says Spalding read to neighbours and the story was written in "the most ancient style, and as the Old Testament". And she points to an exact date that she attributes him reading this manuscript as being 1812..Hull’s surrender at Detroit occurred near the same time. (Aug 1812)

So if you are trying to argue that Josiah’s statement which doesn’t explicitly state that Spalding started his manuscript after the war began should override Matilda’s statement which does offer an explicit date and association with that date for Manuscript Found , as well as Martha's visit in 1812 in which she recounts a manuscript written in biblical style..I don’t think your evidence of Josiah’s is enough to override the other evidences of witnesses who remember a different manuscript. And it can all be accounted for by Spalding beginning Manuscript Found after Josiah left.

When you first read that statement, you read it as Solomon starting the "Manuscript Found" story in August of 1812 and having Josiah leave before that time to account for the fact that Josiah described the manuscript now in Oberlin College very well. Now you are back pedaling as fast as you can, because that date utterly blows several of the other witnesses away.

Matilda says that he started the story after his health failed to have something to do in his forced retirement. John Miller says he was working for Lake and Solomon in 1811. Neither he nor Lake affix the time that business failed. So we are left with Matilda and Josiah to give us a time frame.

Then you attempt to downplay Josiah's contribution as being confused because of probable memory issues, although he does provide a pretty good description of the Oberlin manuscript. Josiah does give us a very good baseline event to infer a time frame for his visit, that of the war of 1812, which as you know, started in June of that year. There is no logical reason to infer that Josiah went to stay with Solomon any time before that date and very good reason to infer that it was after that date because the many of the financial burdens caused by the war in regards to their land speculations in Ohio.
All of these factors tend to support Josiah's memory of the events.
Josiah's visit would have to be sometime in 1812, because his name did not appear on Nehamiah King's list of male adults living in Ashtabula County in 1810 and 1811. You have already pointed that out.
Josiah's remembrance and that of Matilda corroborate each other very well, independently.

Glenn

[_marg]

Reference to above post

When you first read that statement, you read it as Solomon starting the "Manuscript Found" story in August of 1812 and having Josiah leave before that time to account for the fact that Josiah described the manuscript now in Oberlin College very well. Now you are back pedaling as fast as you can, because that date utterly blows several of the other witnesses away.

Glenn I didn't understand Matlida's statement as saying Spalding started the manuscript in Aug - 1812. What I understood is that Josiah was not there at the time that Spalding is reading MF to the neighbours on that date and it didn't appear he was there when Martha was there before the Spalding's left Conneaut.

What I am doing Glenn is looking at all the evidence of the witnesses statements and figuring out what is most likely. Initially I read a sequencing of dates in "Who wrote the Book of Mormon" and I believe they have Josiah leaving in the spring of 1812. But he doesn't mention anything about neighbours coming and listening to spalding read and they say they did, matilda says they did..so the problem is when..and of all the witnesses he's the one in old age, the one who acknowledges he has memory problems. And when I couple that with what I've been reading on memory that in old age people can have in tact memories on facts but they mix up when those memories occur and as well they have difficulty sequencing events time wise..he's the one person due to his extreme old age I think may be having difficulty in source memory..that is mixing up when things occurred. In addition some other things could be going on. He doesn't talk about Spalding reading to anyone not even him..so my impression is that he might have been reading Spalding's MSCC while Spalding was working on MF.
It does appear that he has a great memory for MSCC..but that too may be attributable to how memory works. Apparently in old age people can have good memories for particular times in their lives..I believe in the 20's one of those times, and I think some teenage years is another. So Josiah may have good recall of reading MSCC due to his reading of it and remember the facts associated with it but he may never have listened to spalding read MF.

So I'm more inclined to be suspicious of Josiah's statement and dating, who is not using any retrieval cues, who is 90 years old recalling 43 year old memory..if it contradicts the majority of other witnesses..who are recalling events ..not when they are in old age and a time period difference between events of 1/2 the time of Josiah's, who did use retrieval cues, and who may have spent more time listening to Spalding read than Josiah who never mentions he spent anytime listening to him read. So I think I differ to the authors of "who wrote the Book of Mormon" who I think believe he started MF in middle 1812 and I guess they are using Josiahs's statement. I on the other hand don't think Josiahs statement can be relied upon in dating MF. I think even if Spalding was writing MF while Josiah was around that Josiah may not have appreciated this or even they had talked about it while he was with Spalding that he may not have encoded it well, that is he may not have spent any time in listening to Spalding reading and he may not have read it himself.

Matilda says that he started the story after his health failed to have something to do in his forced retirement. John Miller says he was working for Lake and Solomon in 1811. Neither he nor Lake affix the time that business failed. So we are left with Matilda and Josiah to give us a time frame.

His health failed earlier than 1812..and Matilda does not say he started MF in 1812.

Then you attempt to downplay Josiah's contribution as being confused because of probable memory issues, although he does provide a pretty good description of the Oberlin manuscript.

See above. Once again memory in old age can be very good for selective facts even though confused on when something occurred (source memory) or sequencing of time events occurred (temporal memory). So Josiah obviously read MSCC...the question is did he ever have an opportunity to encode MF..that is did he ever discuss read or listen to spalding with any of his manuscripts? How did he encode MSCC, was that by his own reading solely. Did Spalding every discuss his stories with him, or did Josiah on his own read MSCC for something to do while Spalding was writing MF. Knowing what happened would help to evaluate. Josiah didn't even use any retrieval cue, he didn't bother looking at the Book of Mormon..so maybe after 43 years he's forgotten MF and the Book of Mormon might have jogged his memory. There are all sorts of considerations, but I wouldn't rely on Josiah's statement for dating of when Spalding started MF.

Josiah does give us a very good baseline event to infer a time frame for his visit, that of the war of 1812, which as you know, started in June of that year. There is no logical reason to infer that Josiah went to stay with Solomon any time before that date and very good reason to infer that it was after that date because the many of the financial burdens caused by the war in regards to their land speculations in Ohio.

Josiah on his own is not a better witness than the others.

All of these factors tend to support Josiah's memory of the events.
Josiah's visit would have to be sometime in 1812, because his name did not appear on Nehamiah King's list of male adults living in Ashtabula County in 1810 and 1811. You have already pointed that out.
Josiah's remembrance and that of Matilda corroborate each other very well, independently.

[/quote]

Matilida did not say he started MF in Aug 1812. What she remembers is him reading MF to neighbours on that date. That's how I read her statement. As well when his health failed he began to write to "beguile the hours of retirement and furnish employment for his lively imagination, he conceived the idea of giving a historical sketch of this long lost race." So his health failed when they arrived in conneaut. So it's likely he wrote MSCC or at least began it first and then later began MF..but exactly when that occurred or when he stopped MSCC and focused entirely on MF would be difficult for witnesses to pin down. The themes of the story...are a" historical sketch of the lost race"..however for the witnesses Spalding read to..and it appears it was only MF that he read to people..they are the ones to be aware when he was working on MF. Someone knowledgeable such as Josiah about MSCC says nothing about when Spalding was working on or started MF.

[_Dan Vogel]

The Book of Mormon isn’t a parody.

The Book of Mormon isn't a parody. Even though Spalding (not Rigdon, or Cowdery, or Smith) kept his unbelief hidden, he had every right to compose some subtle satire on the abuse of religion. And even believers have the responsibility to fight the abuse of religion. Isn't it the biggest excuse for those who become agnostic?

They say Mormons don't have a sense of humor. If they did, they could see the attempted jokes (and satire) in the Book of Mormon, and they would no longer be LDS. Smith and Co. turned a satire into something that was regarded as God's Gospel Truth. Sort of turning Monte Python into a religion. OOOPS-- some do regard it as so.

Mormons are no different than any other group that looks upon their scriptures seriously, while outsiders mock what they see as silly stories.