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

[_GlennThigpen]

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.

Maybe that is not what you understood, but it is not what you said. I will quote again the pertinent excerpt from your statement. "And it can all be accounted for by Spalding beginning Manuscript Found after Josiah left." That is a pretty explicit statement there.
You keep raising the Martha Spalding issue and I have responded several times. Martha and John Spalding lived withing walking distance of Solomon home. Martha only says that she "I was at his house a short time before he left Conneaut." John also visited Solomon, evidently sometime late in 1812. There is nothing there that would infer even an overnight visit if they lived that close. And it is also very probable that Martha and John are speaking about the same visit. Being that their statement is focused on the Book of Mormon and Spalding's romance, there is no reason for them to even note who was currently staying with Solomon. That is a piece of non-evidence.

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.

That book is not gospel. The only evidence that we have is from Josiah's statement. The war of 1812 is his reference point. The financial difficulties that he and Solomon encountered due to that war have been detailed by others and are pretty much historical. He says that sacrifices had to be made to pay their debts, but does not detail what they were. However, he relates a logical chain of events: "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,"

As I pointed out in an earlier post, there is no reason to infer that Josiah went to stay with Solomon "for some time" before the war broke out. He does not attempt to assign dates to his move and sojourn, but gives some pretty good landmarks for us to go by. There is no reason to infer that he went to stay with Solomon before the war started and before their major financial problems began. You do not have any evidence that it did not happen the way that he said that it did.

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.

Neither does John or Martha Spalding. What Josiah has said has been shown to be pretty accurate. But silence on the neighbors is not evidence that he was not there. He is just silent on that point. Only John Miller is the only one of the Conneaut witnesses that said that Solomon would read "humorous passages" to the neighbors, but did not name any of them.

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.

"Apparently in old age people can have good memories for particular times in their lives" and this particular time is right smack dab in the middle of the time that Solomon is supposed to be starting the "Manuscript Found."

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.

marge, a war is a pretty good marking event, even for one aged as Josiah was. Again, you have zero evidence that Josiah is not remembering the sequence accurately. He has some pretty good markers for his sequence. and demonstrated a pretty good recall of the general events of the time. His sequencing is determined by the external events that caused them, which can be and have been checked.

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.

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."

Shortly after our removal to this place, his health sunk, and he was laid aside from active labors.

She does not say how long the "short time" is. Solomon seems to have been actively engaged in his partnership with Henry Lake at least through 1811. We do not have an official time for the dissolution of that partnership, so we can only guess.

Shortly after our removal to this place, his health sunk, and he was laid aside from active labors. In the town of New Salem there are numerous mounds and forts, supposed by many to be the delapidated dwellings and fortifications of a race now extinct. These ancient relics arrest the attention of the new settlers, and become objects of research for the curious.

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.

Here she is not talking about the neighbors. She is talking about the time frame that "he conceived the idea of giving a historical sketch of this long-lost race." And this is the time frame that she says that he conceived that idea. "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." It was after he conceived the idea and started his writing that he began to read to the neighbors, to state the obvious. But Matilda is not talking about the date that he started reading the story to the neighbors.

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.

Here again, there is a problem. Remember that Oliver Smith said that Solomon stayed with him for about six months when Solomon first came to the area. This was in late 1809. Oliver said "All his leisure hours were occupied in writing a historical novel, founded upon the first settlers of this country." Oliver goes on to trot out the names Nephi, Lehi, etc.
So here we have Solomon supposedly writing the "Manuscript Found" before he started the forge, before he had his workers dig into one of the mounds, before his "health sunk." This presents a problem for Aron Wright, because if Solomon was writing the "Manuscript Found" when he "first came to this place" then Wright's statement that "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." is skewed. No matter how you look at it, those witnesses have problems with the time lines.

And no matter how you look at it, Matilda Davison says that the manuscript fell into her hands and she carefully preserved it, but surrendered it to Hurbut. Andwe know where it is now.

Glenn

[_MCB]

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

There is a big difference between outsiders mocking what they see as silly stories, and outsiders who see wise satire in stories. Insiders, in this instance, taking everything seriously, refuse to learn from those stories. Sometimes it takes a sense of humor to drive a point home, especially in order to get past the individual's defenses.

Why else has Aesop's fables been so deeply ingrained into our (and European) culture?

When I look at the "Nephites," who thought themselves superior to the "Lamanites," meeting their inevitable end, and the survivors assimilating with the "Lamanites," who are not that bad, after all, I see wisdom in the Book of Mormon. Most Mormons miss that, because they believe themselves superior to non-Mormons, particularly those of color, or whose ancestry is otherwise not "suitable." All this ends up being a huge, but sad, practical joke. I do not mock the Book of Mormon here.

[_marg]

marge wrote:
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.


Glenn: "Neither does John or Martha Spalding."

--------------------------------

John does, he says"the book was entitled MF of which he read to me many passages.

Martha does as well... "I have no manner of doubt that the historical part of it is the same that I read and heard read".

The impression I get when looking at Josiah's statement is that he read the entire MSCC up to the point that the current copy takes it. I don't get the impression that he listened piecemeal to Spalding read. So I suspect...he had the whole MSCC available as the current copy today and read it, while most of the witnesses ..at least the ones who mainly listened to spalding..they listened as spalding progressed and heard it piecemeal. That's my speculation. As well their understanding of what MF was about likely relied heavily on his discussion, not what was in MF. In otherwords .."American Indians" was not in MF, but they appreciated the story was to describe and explain a history of ancestors for Am. Indians. I also think it's possible that while Josiah kept himself busy reading MSCC that Spalding may have worked on MF. And for some reason neighbours and friends didn't come in during his stay to listen to Spalding.

(BTW- I may have to back off in my responding until Monday..I have some paperwork for an organization I have to do to have ready for sunday)

I might as well add:

Matilda Davison: "Numerous implements were found, and other articles evincing great skill in the arts. Mr. Spalding 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."


Glenn: Here she is not talking about the neighbors. She is talking about the time frame that "he conceived the idea of giving a historical sketch of this long-lost race." And this is the time frame that she says that he conceived that idea.
----------------
Response: You are making an assumption she's saying that's when he started. Look at the context of the evidence. She didn't take much if any interest in his stories, Hurlbut makes that comment as well...so the only thing at this point in time in 1812 ..a date she remembers is neighbours coming and listening. She didn't spend her time reading or listening to his work or taking an interest. Yes she overheard him reading in biblical language but that's about it. And she may have heard him discuss what he was writing about. That's like my husband..he sends out a long email to 800 people just about every week in which he discusses a topic of interest of his "the blues". I rarely read his emails. I think I've read 2 in the last 3 years.

My point is she wouldn't likely know when he started MF because she wasn't interested..but she could hear him reading to people and notice biblical language and fix a date to that.

[_MCB]

I'm busy reading Schacter. Will start writing again soon. Thank you, Marg, for stimulating me to address something I have been unwilling to address, in all its complexity.

[Guest]

Response: You are making an assumption she's saying that's when he started. Look at the context of the evidence. She didn't take much if any interest in his stories, Hurlbut makes that comment as well...so the only thing at this point in time in 1812 ..a date she remembers is neighbours coming and listening. She didn't spend her time reading or listening to his work or taking an interest. Yes she overheard him reading in biblical language but that's about it. And she may have heard him discuss what he was writing about. That's like my husband..he sends out a long email to 800 people just about every week in which he discusses a topic of interest of his "the blues". I rarely read his emails. I think I've read 2 in the last 3 years.

My point is she wouldn't likely know when he started MF because she wasn't interested..but she could hear him reading to people and notice biblical language and fix a date to that.[/quote]



marge, I read her statement again. Here is where she puts a date or time frame to something:

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... 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.

She does not put a date or dates on the times that the neighbors would come in. Here is what she said:

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

Look at the context of the text.
She is talking about the time frame that he conceived the idea of writing his story. Then the neighbors come in to hear the narrative as it progresses. That is reading comprehension 101. Matilda did not say that she heard him read the story to the neighbors in August but that he conceived the idea in August.
I am not assuming anything here. I am just reading the text as it comes.
You are making the assumption that she was not interested in his story. She seems to remember Solomon quite fondly and took care to preserve his papers. That shows at least a moderate level of interest to me.

Also, I am not making an assumption that Oliver Smith said that Solomon boarded with him about six months when he first came to the area, that Solomon spent all of his leisure hours writing a book which featured Lehi and Nephi, i.e. the alleged manuscript found, which messes up any other timeline because if Solomon had been writing that story then, he could not alter his plan and commence writing a history of the first settlers of America as Aaron Wright averred when Oliver Smith said that he was already writing it in late 1809 or early 1810 when Solomon first came to the area.


Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

In responding to your post to Glenn, I tried to explain a few things about the ten tribe theory and how the Book of Mormon was a rejection of that popular belief. Your response to that was consistently off point and irrelevant. I’m going to repeat your initial post to Glenn, which triggered my response.

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.

This was you telling us what the witnesses thought. Most surprisingly, you are sure they thought about the ten tribe theory the same way you do. You think because the ten tribes couldn’t migrate to America en masse, Spalding and the witnesses could not have believed such was the case. No matter how unrealistic it seems to you, it was nevertheless believable to Spalding’s contemporaries. The simple matter is that it doesn’t matter what you think; it only matters what people thought in 19th century America—what seemed reasonable to them. It is a fallacy to demand people in the past to be rational and consistent when we know people in the present aren’t.

The above argument is so bad that it really needed no other response than the one I just gave. However, rather than responding to the terrible logic of the above statement, I tried to give you some background information in the hope that you would modify your position. So I wrote the following:

They were alluding to the lost tribe theory of Indian origins. This was a very specific theory.

The point here was that the ten tribe theory relied on the passage in the apocryphal book Esdras, which describes a mass migration into a far away region “where never mankind dwelt”--traveling over land and water--which some in the 19th century interpreted as America. That was the theory—the Book of Mormon does not support this. Anything that is not based on this premise is not the ten tribe theory. You can’t have a group leaving Jerusalem a hundred years later and call that a variation of the ten tribe theory—it’s not. Give it up!

Your response to this was irrelevant.

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

Of course, they weren’t alluding to Ethan Smith’s 1823 or 1825 books—they hadn’t been written yet. Ethan Smith didn’t invent the ten tribe theory. The theory goes back to the 16th century. Either Spalding was influenced by the theory when he wrote and the witnesses are accurately remembering, or the witnesses’ memories have been tainted by popular misconceptions about the contents of the Book of Mormon, as Glenn, Ben, and I have suggested. Either way, the ten tribe theory is relevant and you are guilty of quibbling and setting up a strawman. If Spalding’s MS dealt with the “lost tribes” or the ten tribes, it wasn’t anything like the Book of Mormon.

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

Not only that, but Lehi left the southern kingdom of Judah a hundred years later; hence, he wasn’t a descendant of the “lost tribes”. He was of the tribe of Joseph, one of the tribes that got lost, but he wasn’t a descendant of anyone who migrated from the northern kingdom a hundred years later—unless someone came back, but that’s now how the story goes. To say that the Indians are descended from the lost tribes was right for Ethan Smith, for example, but it’s not right for the Book of Mormon. That’s a simple fact you need to acknowledge. It’s obvious that your resistance is only due to your not wanting to admit Glenn’s point that the Spalding witnesses were confused and calls into question the reliability of their memories.

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.

No! You are the one who is confused. Remember, I’m the one who wrote the book on this subject. You might try reading it. Although fiction, Spalding’s only extant MS is based on what was known about the Indians in the Great Lakes Region. He probably chose Romans because Latin could be translated. If he wrote about the ten tribes, he would have probably chosen Hebrew—but certainly not Egyptian.

However, your response does not respond to what I wrote:

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.

My point was that discovery of the Indian in the New World was a theological problem to Bible believers, and connecting them to the ten tribes was a way of saving them from annihilation and justifying missionary ambitions. Ethan Smith was only the most popular effort, not the first.

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

No! Joseph Smith rejected the ten tribe theory, probably because it was based on the Apocrypha. Another problem was that the ten tribes went to a place “where never mankind dwelt” and the Jaredites had inhabited the New World before Lehi’s arrival. By rejecting the ten tribe theory, Joseph Smith could tap into the apparent Jewish characteristics of the Indians, while at the same time incorporating the tower of Babel theory. Note that Ether says the Jaredites were going to a land “where never man had been.”

However, again you seem to not be responding to what I wrote:

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.

How do you get out of this statement that Joseph Smith, Spalding, and Ethan Smith held the same theory, the only difference being Spalding’s was fictional? The point you didn’t want to respond to is that Joseph Smith wrote at a time when the scriptural basis for the ten tribe theory was being questioned.

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.

This was in response to the following:

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.

You seem to think that everything can be explained by continually pointing out that Spalding’s romance is fictional—it doesn’t! In fact, it’s irrelevant. The witnesses believed the Book of Mormon was about the Indians, who were descended from the lost tribes, but they were wrong. If they were wrong about that, how can they be reliable when it comes to Spalding’s MS? Obviously, the witnesses hadn’t really read the Book of Mormon carefully. The ten tribe theory rests on Esdras, and any variation of it has to be recognizable as a variation or else it’s not a variation but something different. The Book of Mormon is different. What could be simpler? The witnesses were dead wrong to connect the Book of Mormon to the ten tribe theory—and Marty’s face was red when his mistake was pointed out.

Dan: 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.

Marg: 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..

Terminology will make no difference. Lehi wasn’t a “descendant” of the “lost tribes”—he’s tribal affiliation (which he didn’t know until he read the brass plates) was Joseph, one of the tribes that got lost. Paul the apostle was of the tribe of Benjamin, but he wasn’t a “descendant” of the lost tribes either. Just because each tribe was assigned a geographic area doesn’t mean there wasn’t intermingling, especially in Jerusalem. You have quoted the witnesses yourself:

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"

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.

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

You are attempting to change their statements to fit your convoluted interpretation of the Book of Mormon. You are wrong on both counts. It’s quite clear. Give it up!

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.

Possibly I could have said it simpler, but MCB seems to have got it. I’ll repeat the argument then try to explain it:

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.

Your attempt to connect Lehi to the lost tribes theory is illogical because the theory is based on Esdras, and Esdras says the tribes left a hundred years before Lehi was born. Anyone holding the ten tribe theory in Joseph Smith’s day, who actually read the Book of Mormon, would not have associated it with that theory. This is because the Book of Mormon is antithetical to the passage in Esdras. One of the reasons the ten tribe theory became popular was because it seemed to have biblical authority. Spalding would have had no motivation to radically alter the ten tribe theory to the point that it no longer referenced the Esdras passage. The idea that Spalding tried to tap into popular belief in the ten tribe theory by not following that theory is ludicrous. Shifting to a southern migration, which had no biblical support and ran counter to expectations, would have served no purpose. In doing so, he would have lost the authority upon which the theory was based. Joseph Smith could do it because his book was a new revelation.

I think it’s time to admit the Conneaut witnesses’ memories of Spalding’s MS were tainted by misinformation about the Book of Mormon.

[_Finrock]

Good evening MCB!

When I look at the "Nephites," who thought themselves superior to the "Lamanites," meeting their inevitable end, and the survivors assimilating with the "Lamanites," who are not that bad, after all, I see wisdom in the Book of Mormon.

Even if you think the Book of Mormon to be fictional, the Nephites in the book were more diversified in their feelings, attitudes, and judgements towards the Lamanites. Certainly your description is relevant to some Nephites at various times but it doesn't work as a generalized way to describe the two factions.

Most Mormons miss that, because they believe themselves superior to non-Mormons, particularly those of color, or whose ancestry is otherwise not "suitable."

An astonishing statement. Your post claims that most Mormons miss your personal characterization of Book of Mormon events which are, by-the-way, demonstrably generalized and therefore inaccurate. But, even more is how do you qualify that most Mormons are elitist and racist (because that is the essence of your claim)?

Regards,
Finrock

[_MCB]

Mr. Finrock;

Since I am writing a book, in which I document the facts which lead to my conclusion, I would appreciate it if you would not take a "gist" statement out of context. You are jumping to conclusions.

I am a descendant of one of the men who carried a gun to the Carthage jail on June 27, 1844. I was born in Keokuk, Iowa. Most of my life I have lived in as honest and upright a fashion as was possible in the circumstances I was given.

I interpret the Book of Mormon based upon my cultural heritage, and sound literary research, with a master's + 30 degree in educational psychology.

Any further questions?

[_Finrock]

Evening MCB (or morning)!

Mr. Finrock;

Since I am writing a book, in which I document the facts which lead to my conclusion, I would appreciate it if you would not take a "gist" statement out of context. You are jumping to conclusions.

I hope your books writing is going well. I can't comment on anything in the said book as I've never been exposed to these facts that lead you to your conclusions. The content of your posts here I can respond to, assuming of course I possess the intelligence to comprehend your words. Therefore, I've responded to what you've posted here well aware that a single post can hardly encompass a person's thoughts and feelings on a matter. It is why I've asked questions of you rather than just assert things. In this way I've imagined in my mind that you would have an opportunity to clarify. If I've taken something out of context, please let me know how and if I have I will promptly correct my speech!

I am a descendant of one of the men who carried a gun to the Carthage jail on June 27, 1844. I was born in Keokuk, Iowa. Most of my life I have lived in as honest and upright a fashion as was possible in the circumstances I was given.

I interpret the Book of Mormon based upon my cultural heritage, and sound literary research, with a master's + 30 degree in educational psychology.

Any further questions?

You have a very rich heritage and your list of credentials are admirable. I hope you don't take offense, however, in my pointing out that an appeal to authority doesn't exactly qualify your assertion that most Mormons are elitist and racists. An educated person like you should understand how such claims require more than simply stating that one is an authority and so therefore my conclusions about the most of the Mormon people is true. That would be antithetical to reason and scholarly standards. So, yes, I would be pleased to have something more relevant to qualify your assertion. Perhaps a survey, or some study you've done to gather data which allows one to at least begin to speculate on general traits that most of some population or another shares in common. In particular these types of negative traits, like racism and elitism, which if true, would lead to the conclusion that Mormons are for the most part very evil and wicked people. Surely you do not want these types of claims being attributed to yourself unless you've got some actual data to back it up?

Regards,
Finrock

[_marg]

Your attempt to connect Lehi to the lost tribes theory is illogical because the theory is based on Esdras, and Esdras says the tribes left a hundred years before Lehi was born. Anyone holding the ten tribe theory in Joseph Smith’s day, who actually read the Book of Mormon, would not have associated it with that theory. This is because the Book of Mormon is antithetical to the passage in Esdras. One of the reasons the ten tribe theory became popular was because it seemed to have biblical authority. Spalding would have had no motivation to radically alter the ten tribe theory to the point that it no longer referenced the Esdras passage. The idea that Spalding tried to tap into popular belief in the ten tribe theory by not following that theory is ludicrous. Shifting to a southern migration, which had no biblical support and ran counter to expectations, would have served no purpose. In doing so, he would have lost the authority upon which the theory was based. Joseph Smith could do it because his book was a new revelation.

Just so you know I haven't read the rest of your post. I just got home and briefly skimmed to this point. As well this week I have to shift focus on other things than this board.

Your attempt to connect Lehi to the lost tribes theory is illogical because the theory is based on Esdras, and Esdras says the tribes left a hundred years before Lehi was born.

Lost tribes dispersed around 720 B.C....Lehi & family migrated around 600 B.C. ..don't see a problem yet.

Anyone holding the ten tribe theory in Joseph Smith’s day, who actually read the Book of Mormon, would not have associated it with that theory. This is because the Book of Mormon is antithetical to the passage in Esdras.

Whatever is in the Book of Mormon is irrelevant, witnesses were recalling Spalding's book. And if you are right, then there was no reason for the witnesses to mention "lost tribes" based on exposure to the Book of Mormon.

One of the reasons the ten tribe theory became popular was because it seemed to have biblical authority. Spalding would have had no motivation to radically alter the ten tribe theory to the point that it no longer referenced the Esdras passage.

Spalding apparently was not religious..so the Bible was not authoritative to him.

Why couldn't he have a story..which begins with the dispersal of the 10 tribes in 720 B.C. or even mention his characters in 600 B.C. were descendants of lost tribes from the 720 B.C. group. I don't see the problem with this. Even now, the speculation is where did the lost tribes go and who are their descendants. Is the theory limited to lost tribes migrating to only one spot in the world..and they couldn't possibly have dispersed to different areas? If so why?

The idea that Spalding tried to tap into popular belief in the ten tribe theory by not following that theory is ludicrous.

One of the witnesses Mckee said Spalding had the 10 tribes migrate to China... fight amongst themselves and the surviving group join forces and went north to Bering str and over to America. Maybe spalding worked backwards adding more stories going back to 720 B.C. as he was with McKee later than the other witnessses. But none of the witnesses were concerned that Spalding's story was about a small group migrating to America and associated with the lost tribes. And yet , if everyone back then was so fanatically rigid in their beliefs and couldn't deviate from a one only lost tribes theory which involved a mass migration in 720 B.C. to one area in the world ..how is it they have no problem with a different storyline? The focus of the story was to write a story about the first people's in America which also explained Am. Indians. So why couldn't a few descendents from the 720 B.C. lost tribes mythical story ..end up being part of Spalding's tale in which they migrate to America.

Shifting to a southern migration, which had no biblical support and ran counter to expectations, would have served no purpose. In doing so, he would have lost the authority upon which the theory was based.

I thought the lost tribes myth wasn't even in the Bible. I have no idea what you are talking about "he would have lost the authority" MCB can you help make some sense out of this for me?

I think it’s time to admit the Conneaut witnesses’ memories of Spalding’s MS were tainted by misinformation about the Book of Mormon.

[/quote]

Well there's virtually no mention of lost tribes in the Book of Mormon...so how would that taint them into describing Spalding's story as they did?