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

[_GlennThigpen]

And for those interested in the science and what this thread was originally all about, the latest (April 2011) issue of the Literary and Linguistic Computing online magazine is now available. Bruce Schaalje's article has now, indeed, been published in a peer reviewed publication. It is pay to view, though.

Glenn

[_marg]

marge, I am not talking about what Solomon may or may not have written, or whether he may have deviated from the "standard script". I am talking about the witnesses themselves and what they most likely would have understood about a lost tribes as ancestors of the American Indians story. It would have been easy for them to have vaguely remembered Solomon's story was about two warring tribes of Indians, a boat trip, remembered discussions with Solomon about the lost tribes and interconnected the two. And that would also describe vaguely, the Oberlin manuscript.

Well there are major differences in what the witnesses recall versus the Oberlin which when shown it those who were, said it wasn't the one they referenced in their statements and in fact Spalding had written it, but has written another which went further back in time. Other witnesses in their original statements before Oberlin manuscript was found, menioned spalding had written a number of manuscripts.

The Oberlin is about Indians already inhabiting America..so the story tells nothing of their history, how they got to America and how America was founded..and yet the witnesses talk about the story being about how America was founded. Writing a story involving Indians as per the Oberlin manuscrpt says nothing about the original founding people, who in theory could have included other groups. There was no phrase “and it came to pass” no biblical style language, both items unique and memorable to what they said Spalding's story had. Various details the witnesses say they clearly remembered from the Book of Mormon retrieval cue was not in the Oberlin manuscript and people do in fact know the difference between clearly remembering versus just knowing or being familiar..that is when they have good source memories of how and where their memories came from. So no the Oberlin does not replace another manuscript which would align with the Book of Mormon in which the Oberlin one does not.

So let’s look at what they said

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.

Oliver Smith: All his leisure
hours were occupied in writing a historical novel, founded upon the first
settlers of this country. He said he intended to trace their journey from
Jerusalem, by land and sea, till their arrival in America

NAHUM HOWARD: I
once, in conversation with him, expressed a surprise at not having any
account of the inhabitants once in this country, who erected the old forts,
mounds, &c. He then told me that he was writing a history of that race of
people;

JOHN N. MILLER; It purported to be the history
of the first settlement of America, before discovered by Columbus. He
brought them off from Jerusalem, under their leaders; detailing their travels
by land and water, their manners, customs, laws, wars, &c.

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.

HENRY LAKE: This book represented the American Indians
as the descendants of the lost tribes, gave account of their leaving Jerusalem,
their contentions and wars, which were many and great.

ARTEMAS CUNNINGHAM: he went into a verbal
relation of its outlines, saying that it was a fabulous or romantic history
of the first settlement of this country, and as it purported to have been a
record found buried in the earth, or in a cave, he had adopted the ancient or
scriptural style of writing….

He attempted to account for the numerous antiquities
which are found upon this continent, and remarked that, after this
generation had passed away, his account of the first inhabitants of America
would be considered as authentic as any other history.

So in the Oberlin story the Indians presence in America is not necessarily a story of the first inhabitants of America.

And as to your conjecture that the witnesses would have known the Lost tribe myth and there is only one accepted lost tribe myth and it has millions migrating to an unknown place on earth..well according to wiki the Bible is not consistent with this mythical theory. See my post http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=440013#p440013 I’ll quote one part of the post which makes it clear that the Bible is not consistent with the myth.

From wiki: “Some evidence exists of a continuing identification in later centuries of individual Jews to the Lost Tribes. For example, in Luke 2:36 of the New Testament, an individual is identified with the tribe of Asher. In recent years many group have claimed descent from these Lost Tribes, some of which have been upheld by Israel's rabbinic authorities.”

So I agree the witnesses might have had some confusion though very minor and understandable, but on the whole the overall consensus was that Spalding’s story was a historical account to explain who first inhabited Americas and that ultimately the blood line of present day was that Am Indians were descendants of these first inhabitants who happened to be a few descendents of a few lost tribes commonly known in the lost tribe myth.

Now the witnesses might have some confusion as I mentioned previously and difficulty remembering what Spalding's story was versus their common knowledge hence there would be some inconsistencies...was it lost tribes, or Jews , or lost nations...that sort of thing. But there is no reason that the Book of Mormon would create that confusion for them.

marge, you are almost saying what Dan and I have been saying all of this time. That the witnesses were confusing details of Solomon's story with their commonly held knowledge and understanding of the lost tribes migration to the Americas and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians legend. You are correct that the Book of Mormon should not have created that confusion for them.

And I am saying they are recalling Solomon’s story in the main, it may not agree with the Lost tribes myth commonly understood in all respects but there is no reason that Spalding had to adhere to the myth in all respects. And when one Conneaut witness, John Spalding had some minor confusion was lost tribes or jews, I’m saying that the minor confusion is understandable. The essence of their recall is consistent with one another.

The lost tribes story concerns ten tribes. The Conneaut witnesses were not confused as to their understanding of what the lost tribes fable was about. In their statements, those who mention the lost tribes do not even hint that Solomon's story is about a portion of the lost tribes, just one of the lost tribes, or a minute group of people that were descendants of just one of the lost tribes.

I’ll quote again

John1) descendants of
the Jews, or the lost tribes… and… It gave a detailed account of their journey from
Jerusalem, by land and sea, till they arrived in America, under the command
of Nephi and Lehi.

Martha2) were the descendants of
some of the lost tribes of Israel and names of Nephi and
Lehi are yet fresh in my memory, as being the principal heroes of this tale.
They were officers of the company which first came off from Jerusalem.


Oliver3) , founded upon the first
settlers of this country and Nephi and Lehi were by him represented as leading
characters, when they first started for America

Nathan4). a history of that race of
people; [who erected the old forts,
mounds ]

ARon5) history of the first settlement of America,… He
brought them off from Jerusalem,

Henry6) history … of the lost tribes of
Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America

John miller7) represented the American Indians
as the descendants of the lost tribes, gave account of their leaving Jerusalem

Artemass8) fabulous or romantic history of the first settlement of this country,… account of the first inhabitants of America..and . I well remember the name of Nephi, which appeared to be the
principal hero of the story

# 1 & 2 & 3 specifically talk about a small group which can not represent the entire lost tribes "in the millions" myth

# 4 says he’s looked at the Book of Mormon and believes it to be the same as Spalding..and so the Book of Mormon is not talking about a large group migrating in it’s first few pages..hence no reason he should think it’s a large group in Spalding’s book

# 5 says he (spalding) traced their journey as it is given in Book of Mormon..therefore no reason to think he thought Spalding had a large group migrating

# 6 says historical part of it (Book of Mormon) is principally, if not wholly, taken from MF. ..no reason for him to think a large group migrated in Spalding’s story

# 7 ..again he examined the Book of Mormon ..and found in it the writing of S. Spalding from beginning to end. .Again no reason for him to think Spalding’s story entailed a large migrating group..if Book of Mormon agreed with Spalding on that aspect.

So contrary to what you say Glenn the witnesses not just hint, they do more than that, they make it clear Spalding’s story was not about a large migration of lost tribes people or large numbers of their descendents. .

# 1, 2, 6, & 7 specifically mention lost tribes, # 1 is unsure if Lost tribes or Jews, the others don’t specify. So the overall consensus is Spalding’s story involved a few descendants of a lost tribe or of a few lost tribes (as per Martha) who migrated to America.

So to sum up..Spalding did not need to recreate the lost tribe myth..of millions migrating to an unknown land. His version although different to that myth, would have been consistent with other biblical passages. John Spalding shows a bit of confusion ..is it lost tribes of Jews spalding had leave Jerusalem...so he may have second guessed based upon his personal knowledge of lost tribes myth and thought maybe it was Jews spalding have leave Jerusalem. That's understandable for someone to do that trying to recall a 20 year memory of a story.

When it comes to the Book of Mormon, their statements show very little knowledge of the Book of Mormon, but rather seem to reflect browsing through the first couple of books looking for key words which had already been supplied to them.

Their statements reflect that they looked through the Book of Mormon and in many respects appreciated it to be the same as Spalding’s.

[_marg]

Post reference: link

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.

Dan, I’m not throwing my beliefs into this, it’s you and Glenn who are doing that. I’m going by what the witnesses said in their statements and based upon their statements they were talking about a few descendents of lost tribes migrating to America..that’s what they recalled of spalding’s story. I address this in more detail in my post to Glenn here http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=440065#p440065 I come at this stuff pretty much with a blank slate so it is odd to hear you argue..that there is only one myth and the witnesses must have appreciated this myth but due to not reading the Book of Mormon thoroughly became confused. Whereas I’m looking at this based upon their statements and even if they knew the lost tribes myth which incorporated millions travelling en masse to some unknown place…they recollected spalding’s version which didn’t adhere to the myth. And in Spalding’s version he has some descendants of a lost tribe living in Jerusalem and migrating eventually to Americas.

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:

LOL…Dan you are the one with the ridiculous argument. Spalding did not need to duplicate the “lost tribes” myth in particular have lost tribes migrate en masse. Is the Bible consistent with this? According to wiki which I referenced in another post it isn’t. Your argument is so convoluted. You’ve got the witnesses who you say apparently know the lost tribe myth of the ‘migrating in masses theory.’...but they make statements recalling Spalding’s manuscript in which only a few migrate to America..so you’d think if they appreciated this one and only lost myth ..that the 4 who mentioned spalding wrote about descendants of lost tribes in Jerusalem wouldn’t have mentioned that , because it would run counter to this one theory of mass migration. But instead 4 of them mention lost tribes and you argue that they are simply confusing newspaper reports or what they’ve heard of others describing the Book of Mormon. Dan that sounds like a Mormon apologist arguing, because many don’t care how ridiculous or convoluted an argument is..just as long as they can claim any possibility no matter how remote.

The most likely reason the witnesses described Spalding’s story with a lost tribe connection even though it differed to the en masse migrating lost tribe myth which as you say the witnsses would have been familiar with, ..is that they were recalling Spalding’s story.

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!

Dan, Spalding didn’t have to duplicate the 10 tribe myth theory. You give it up!!! And yes the Book of Mormon doesn’t support that theory…You know why lol…because they copied Spalding who didn’t support that theory. But they didn’t leave it at that, instead they put in lines elsewhere mentioning some tirbes of the house of Israel lived somewhere else..unknown.

. 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.

Well Spalding's MF could very well be like the Book of Mormon…Spalding’s characters were descendants of lost tribes..but Spalding’s lost tribe characters lived in Jerusalem..so they weren’t the lost "lost tribes" of the myth. However Spalding doesn't have to adhere to the myth and assume the lost tribes per the myth were lost. Maybe he thought they all assimiliated into surrounding populations but anyone associated with those tribes which dispersed and their ancestry are still of the lost tribes, just not the lost "lost tribes" of the myth.

And the witnesses(4 who mention lost tribes) despite probably knowing the lost tribe myth, appreciated Spalding's story was not consistent with the common lost tribe myth but that his story was still about lost tribe ancestry. One can still appreciated who the lost tribes were, what the names of the tribes were and that they may have assimilated in whatever areas they went to. One doesn't have to adhere to the myth with the mere mention of lost tribes.

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.

Lehi may not have been a descendent of the lost “lost tribes” if one doesn’t deviate from the Lost Tribe myth..but there is no reason why Spalding couldn’t deviate from it. There is no reason why Spalding in writing fiction would assume the “lost tribes” all migrated en masse to some unknown land. His theory could be they dispersed ..and assimilated into areas they went to.

Quote:
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.

You are looking at this from a Mormon or religious perspective. What about from a non believer perspective. i e. The Lamanitess despite being cursed with dark skin for not believing end up being the survivors ..whereas the believers end up be annihilated. So what is the moral of the story? It is that the Bible stories in which god curses mankind with dark skin is a farce. That there is no such thing as a God protecting believers..because look at what happens to the Lamanites & Nephites, ..The Laminites survive despite their dark skin and what is supposedly says and the Nephites who spent years believing in God weren’t protected by him and are annihilated.

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.”

And how does the Book of Mormon reject the 10 tribe theory? ..because it has 3 small mentions of lost tribes living elsewhere. Because it doesn’t have a mass migration? Well if Spalding’s story differed to the Lost tribes myth, to a religious person that would be reason to insert the mention of lost tribes living elsewhere so as to be consistent with the lost tribe myth.

If Splading is not adhering to the Lost tribe in all respects he doesn’t have to concern himself making sure the land was not inhabited previously. That would only be a concern for a religious individual..and so once again, they’d want to insert lost tribes lived elsewhere and take out any mention that Lehi was a lost tribe descendant.

What Jewish characteristic did Smith tap into that would not have been contained in a descendant of a lost tribe member who went to Jerusalem in 720 B.C. ? Spalding does not have to adhere to the myth you are talking about.

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.

The same fictional story of a descendant of a lost tribe ancestry member migrating to America...spalding was fiction, the Book of Mormon was meant as true history both with same overall story lines..except for the lost tribes of Book of Mormon living elsewhere unknown. Ethan Smith’s theory of the migration of all lost tribes en masse deals with lost tribes and where they all went.

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.

They make it clear in their statements when they reference “lost tribes” they are not talking about a lost tribe myth theory in which millions migrate elsewhere, because they describe Spalding's story as being of a few who migrate.

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.

They did not connect the Book of Mormon to the ten tribe myth theory. They said spalding wrote a book about the founding people of America who were a small group from a lost tribe. Perhaps if they'd specified lost tribe ancestry or some other sort of phrasing that would have been better for some nit pickers out to dismiss them. They did not say Spalding followed the lost tribe myth, that is your assertion and it is in my opinion not well warranted. You are asserting that a fictional writer can not deviate from a myth ..this despite the fact that even the Bible deviates from this myth (from what I can tell based upon wiki which I referenced in another post)

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:

So according to the Book of Mormon story Lehi finds out he’s a descendant of one of the lost tribes. And because you know the lost tribes myth you know Lehi’s ancestor couldn’t be from the lost portion of the lost tribes but rather his ancestry is from the known where they are living portion of the lost tribes in this case they intermingled in Jerusalem .

Well Dan, maybe Spalding didn’t believe in any of the myth, thought all the so called lost tribes dispersed and intermingled with the surrounding peoples and that Lehi 's character had a lost tribe ancestry , that is they were of the lost tribe myth even though his ancestry wasn’t lost. Maybe Spalding thought none of the lost tribes were lost...but none the less his characters were still of as lost tribe of the lost tribe myth. And that is what the witnesses recalled. They make it clear they are not referring to “lost tribes” of the myth who are not known where they went to but rather they are referring to a character who is an ancestor of a tribe of the lost tribe myth. They are quite aware that Spalding’s book is only about a few people from Jerusalem migrating to America and if they are well familiar with the myth then looking at the context of their statements when they say "Lost tribe" it is not the lost tribe of the myth in which no one knows where they went but rather the ancestor of someone who was part of the lost tribe. And while that character and his ancestors are not lost, none the less, they are still part of the tribes known to the lost tribe myth. Spalding's story was to show Am Indians were descendants of these people and obviously the witnesses appreciated via the context of their statements that Spalding's characters were not ancestors of some roaming or unknown where to find ...lost tribes.

You are making an argument which forces the lost tribe myth onto what the witnesses say as well as what spalding wrote about, but given the context of their statements they did not think Spalding was confining his story to the mythical story of lost tribes involving millions lost and unknown where they are. And based upon their statements Spalding wasn’t trying to be consistent with the myth which you say they and he would have known. But none the less he represented his characters who migrate to the americas as descendants of one of the tribes which were known by name, the name of a lost tribe per the myth and it’s his family's descendants who are represented in the story as Am. Indian.

If the witnesses knew the lost tribe myth was about tribes who were lost,their location unknown and was not about tribes who assimilated into nearby populations and if they knew spalding's main characters were assimilated living in Jerusalem ..then why bother to mention lost tribes at all? You say they would have known the lost tribe myth story, if so it would have been obvious to them in recalling Spalding's story that the main character were not descended from the unknown where they live "lost tribes". But since they did mention lost tribes the explanation would simply be that Spalding's story didn't adhere to the millions of unknown where they are living " 10 lost tribes" but rather in the context of their statements lost tribe referred to the name of a tribe per the lost tribe myth and to ancestors who weren't lost but had assimilated. They may have appeared lost in that where they lived was not known to believers of the lost tribe myth. But spalding could incorporate in his story characters which were of lost tribes but who had assimilated with nearby populations..so they weren't lost as per the myth.

You are expecting too much of the witnesses that they should have explained how spalding's story differed to the lost tribe myth and that they were referring to ancestors of assimilated lost tribes as opposed to unknown whereabouts "lost tribes" per the myth.

It says the following on the wiki page on Book of Mormon "Jesus spoke to the Jews in Jerusalem of “other sheep” who would hear his voice,[68] which the Book of Mormon claims meant that the Nephites and other remnants of the lost tribes of Israel throughout the world were to be visited by Jesus after his resurrection.[69]" So does that mean the Nephites and lamanites are referred to as remnants of the lost tribes of Israel? So if the Conneaut witnesses could figure out this terminology and said Spalding's book wanted to show that American Indians are descendants of remnants of the lost tribes of Israel then that would have been okay for you?

[_MCB]

The dwindling theory.

I am going to be poetical about this. The lost tribes theory dwindled in unbelief. The Jesuit missionaries in the North thought that they had landed in Japan. The Spanish invaders thought they had landed in India. These theories dwindled when they found out that the world was much larger than they thought. For fundamentalists, the theory was necessary for theological reasons. Therefore, they reduced the numbers, and they pushed back the calendar-- thus the Jaredites. It dwindled further. Then, because the en masse migration was unlikely, given the great distance, with the Nephites, the authors reduced it to (essentially) one family. The theory dwindles and gets adapted as information makes it less and less likely. Now, with DNA, it has dwindled to "they nearly all got killed off," and "we know their descendants are here, we just haven't found them yet." Fewer and fewer people believe in the theory, and it keeps dwindling. It is a 500 year old theory, that has been disproved many times, and now those few believers left only believe it because it has been encased in "Scripture," written as an allegory on the sinful human condition. They are so obsessed with its historical truth that they miss the allegory. Even though many now accept evolution and the fact that humanity became humanity much longer ago than 6,000 years.

[_marg]

Post reference: link


I’m just going to address a few comments within the post.

The witnesses believed the Book of Mormon was about the Indians, who were descended from the lost tribes, but they were wrong.

Cite any witness who says they believed the Book of Mormon was about lost tribes. Not one that I know ever said that. They all only talk about their recollection of spalding’s manuscript.

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.

Of course it would be to his benefit to tap into the theory. And contrary to your theory that he needed biblical support..he had support which he created...he was using an "ancient manuscript found" of allegedly true history and he speculated people might believe it as true history. He would have as his explanation that the Am. Indians were descendants of lost tribes which would grab people’s attention, but rather than the tribes dispersing to far corners of the world, he could have them migrate south and intermingle with the southern Israelite population..essentially the lost tribes of the lost tribe myth would become Jews living in Judah.

Your assumption is that Esdras has authority and a fiction writer couldn't change that myth and it have any plausibilty. But you say, J.Smith & co. can get away with tapping into the lost tribe myth because they are writing scripture and creating their own authority. Well to make the point again, Spalding doesn't present his story as fiction, he presents it as true history found... written by ancient peoples. Smith and Co, do the same thing that he does, except they make their story scriptural.

Spalding studied the Bible and apparently the Bible gives explanation that this southern migration occurred. Here’s a site explaining where in the Bible this is supported. Ten Lost Tribes: Found So Spalding's idea of presenting 'true history' from ancients would be an interesting way to present a new twist on the lost tribe myth..found in scripture not universally accepted..Book of Esdras.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

If we can’t convince you on the simplest of matters like the ten tribe issue, what hope have we with more complex issues like memory? You keep misrepresenting what the witnesses said and insist on the most unreasonable interpretation of the Book of Mormon possible. First let’s review what the witnesses said about Spalding’s MS in relation to the ten tribe theory:

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.” (to Hurlbut 1833)

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 aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question. -- The lapse of time which has intervened, prevents my recollecting but few of the leading incidents of his writings.” (to Hurlbut 1833)

Henry Lake: “This book represented the American Indians as the descendants of the lost tribes …” (to Hurlbut 1833)

Aaron Wright: “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 decendants.” (to Hurlbut 1833)

Only Martha hedges on the ancestry of the Indians, probably based on the Book of Mormon’s content, not on her memory of Spalding’s MS, which she admits vague. The others are focused on the ancestry of the Indians, whom they say are descendants of the lost tribes. In the context of the time, this would have entailed the mass migration of the ten tribes described in Esdras, which Wright makes more explicit than the others. As time passed, the Spalding theory became more closely tied to this understanding, not less.

Redick McKee: “This romance he afterwards abandoned and set about writing a more probable story founded on the history of the ten lost tribes of Israel. … 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.” (to Deming 1886)

S. S. Osborne: “it purported to be an account of the journeyings of the ten lost tribes of Israel to America, and what they did and became on this continent, by Solomon Spaulding.” (to Deming 1886)

Mass migration would have involved the Behring Straits; hence Ethan Smith adopted it. Others who believed the Tartars were the first settlers of America also suggested this northern route. Others who held various other theories—like the tower of Babel theory or Phoenicians—speculated the first settlers came by ship. If Spalding wrote in the genre of the lost tribes theory, he likely chose the Behring Straits. Joseph Smith’s rejection of the ten tribe theory allowed him to transplant his colony by ship, much like the Europeans had settled the New World.

I’m going by what the witnesses said in their statements and based upon their statements they were talking about a few descendents of lost tribes migrating to America..that’s what they recalled of spalding’s story.

As you can see above that’s not what they said. That’s your interpretation of what you think they meant to say.

I’m looking at this based upon their statements and even if they knew the lost tribes myth which incorporated millions travelling en masse to some unknown place…they recollected spalding’s version which didn’t adhere to the myth. And in Spalding’s version he has some descendants of a lost tribe living in Jerusalem and migrating eventually to Americas.

This is circular reasoning. Of course they said Spalding’s MS was like the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Mormon doesn’t describe the mass migration that the ten tribe theory requires, so therefore Spalding’s MS didn’t. But that is they very thing we are trying to establish, so you are begging the question here. We know why the Book of Mormon didn’t adhere to the ten tribe theory—because it rejected it altogether—but you haven’t established why Spalding wouldn’t adhere to the theory. You have only given speculation upon speculation. Even if Spalding had given an unique version of the ten tribe theory, it still wouldn’t be the Book of Mormon simply because the Book of Mormon isn’t about the Indians being: “descendants of the Jews, or the lost tribes”; or “descendants of the lost tribes”; or even “some of the lost tribes of Israel.” Part of the witnesses’ problem was that they probably didn’t know the ten tribe theory well enough to distinguish it from the Book of Mormon, and didn’t read enough of it to correct their mistake. But this brings the value of their testimonies into question.

LOL…Dan you are the one with the ridiculous argument. Spalding did not need to duplicate the “lost tribes” myth in particular have lost tribes migrate en masse. Is the Bible consistent with this? According to wiki which I referenced in another post it isn’t. Your argument is so convoluted. You’ve got the witnesses who you say apparently know the lost tribe myth of the ‘migrating in masses theory.’...but they make statements recalling Spalding’s manuscript in which only a few migrate to America..so you’d think if they appreciated this one and only lost myth ..that the 4 who mentioned spalding wrote about descendants of lost tribes in Jerusalem wouldn’t have mentioned that , because it would run counter to this one theory of mass migration. But instead 4 of them mention lost tribes and you argue that they are simply confusing newspaper reports or what they’ve heard of others describing the Book of Mormon. Dan that sounds like a Mormon apologist arguing, because many don’t care how ridiculous or convoluted an argument is..just as long as they can claim any possibility no matter how remote.

I was commenting on your attempt to project your logic onto the Spalding witnesses. Your argument that the mass migration theory itself makes no sense to you and therefore the Spalding witnesses didn’t have to believe either, which gives you permission to tell us what they really meant, is what I labeled as “bad”. Admit it, you can’t really believe this is sound argumentation.

Nevertheless, the above paragraph is evidence that you don’t know what you are talking about, which is why my arguments seem convoluted to you. Those who would have seen the Bible’s discussion of the ten tribes and the one in Esdras as incompatible wouldn’t have held the theory that the Indians were the lost tribes. The author of the Book of Mormon knows the ten tribe theory, asserting that they were still intact in an unknown region of the earth. If you say Spalding didn’t have this view of the ten tribes, then he wasn’t the author of the Book of Mormon.

You are also repeating the fallacy of requiring people in the past to be consistent and logical. It’s not my job to make their statements logical. You can’t argue that the witnesses couldn’t have held incompatible beliefs, therefore they didn’t. Humans are not always consistent. Historians know this pitfall as the idealist fallacy, which according to David Hackett Fischer “consists in a presumption of rationality in human behavior. … A presumption of logical consistency is as unjustified as a presumption of the opposite” (Historian’s Fallacies, 199-200). The witnesses are inconsistent either way, because the Book of Mormon isn’t about the ten tribes. Either Spalding’s MS was about the ten tribes, and therefore contradicts the Book of Mormon, or it wasn’t about the ten tribes, and therefore the witnesses can’t be relied on. Simple!

The most likely reason the witnesses described Spalding’s story with a lost tribe connection even though it differed to the en masse migrating lost tribe myth which as you say the witnsses would have been familiar with, ..is that they were recalling Spalding’s story.

This is circular reasoning—you are assuming what you are trying to prove. This is also the fallacy of possible proof—if only you had the missing evidence, your theory would be verified. On the other hand, we do have evidence that the Book of Mormon isn’t about the ten lost tribes, and that contradicts what the witnesses say. I repeat: Either Spalding’s MS was about the ten tribes, and therefore contradicts the Book of Mormon, or it wasn’t about the ten tribes, and therefore the witnesses can’t be relied on. Simple!

Dan, Spalding didn’t have to duplicate the 10 tribe myth theory. You give it up!!! And yes the Book of Mormon doesn’t support that theory…You know why lol…because they copied Spalding who didn’t support that theory. But they didn’t leave it at that, instead they put in lines elsewhere mentioning some tirbes of the house of Israel lived somewhere else..unknown.

Pure speculation. You need to stick with what we know. This kind of thinking has no rules and can prove anything. This is known as an ad hoc hypothesis, which basically means you keep making things up to save a theory from negative evidence. That kind of game can go on forever, so those who recognize them know the end is near. Bad theories rarely go out with a bang—they just fade away with fewer and fewer defenders. I’m hoping that is the case here.

Well Spalding's MF could very well be like the Book of Mormon…Spalding’s characters were descendants of lost tribes..but Spalding’s lost tribe characters lived in Jerusalem..so they weren’t the lost "lost tribes" of the myth. However Spalding doesn't have to adhere to the myth and assume the lost tribes per the myth were lost. Maybe he thought they all assimiliated into surrounding populations but anyone associated with those tribes which dispersed and their ancestry are still of the lost tribes, just not the lost "lost tribes" of the myth.

This speculating is based on the assumption that the Book of Mormon is the same as Spalding’s MS as the witnesses claimed—yet the Book of Mormon isn’t what they thought it was. That pretty weak position to take. You’ve got nothing but unreliable witnesses and circular reasoning. You don’t know what Spalding wrote, even if there was a second MS, which based on these witnesses seems doubtful. How can the Indians be associated with the “lost tribes” if they weren’t descendants of the “lost tribes”? You are really bending the English language here. That’s not at all what the witnesses said—and you know it.

And the witnesses(4 who mention lost tribes) despite probably knowing the lost tribe myth, appreciated Spalding's story was not consistent with the common lost tribe myth but that his story was still about lost tribe ancestry. One can still appreciated who the lost tribes were, what the names of the tribes were and that they may have assimilated in whatever areas they went to. One doesn't have to adhere to the myth with the mere mention of lost tribes.

The myth was tied to Esdras. If Spalding wrote in that genre—which I doubt he did—he would have most likely followed that myth. You have no reason to think he didn’t follow the myth other than the witnesses’ statements, which is circular reasoning. One can’t say the Book of Mormon story is the same as Spalding’s and at the same time say the Indians are descendants of the lost tribes. It doesn’t work. Lehi wasn’t any more a descendant of the lost tribes than the apostle Paul was.

Lehi may not have been a descendent of the lost “lost tribes” if one doesn’t deviate from the Lost Tribe myth..but there is no reason why Spalding couldn’t deviate from it. There is no reason why Spalding in writing fiction would assume the “lost tribes” all migrated en masse to some unknown land. His theory could be they dispersed ..and assimilated into areas they went to.

There’s also no reason why Spalding would deviate from the prevailing myth. So far, you have only given us your personal ten tribe theory, and projected that onto Spalding. Both Old Testament and Esdras agree that the northern kingdom was carried away captive into Assyria. The scattering is assumed to have eventually occurred long afterward, or they went to Ararat, or some other northern region. But the “lost tribes” are those that went to Assyria as captives and seemingly disappeared.

You are looking at this from a Mormon or religious perspective. What about from a non believer perspective. i e. The Lamanitess despite being cursed with dark skin for not believing end up being the survivors ..whereas the believers end up be annihilated. So what is the moral of the story? It is that the Bible stories in which god curses mankind with dark skin is a farce. That there is no such thing as a God protecting believers..because look at what happens to the Lamanites & Nephites, ..The Laminites survive despite their dark skin and what is supposedly says and the Nephites who spent years believing in God weren’t protected by him and are annihilated.

You apparently don’t know the Book of Mormon’s message on this. Both the Lamanites and Nephites become wicked. However, the Nephites, being God’s chosen or favored people, sin against the greater light and deserve the greater punishment. Where much is given much is expected. The Lamanites sin in ignorance because of the traditions of their fathers. When the Nephites get proud and sinful, God punishes them with Lamanite invasions, until they become humble and repent. This pattern is repeated until the Nephites fail to repent and God allows the Lamanites to destroy them. By the wicked are the wicked punished. This was a warning to Jacksonian America to repent or be destroyed like the Nephites.

And how does the Book of Mormon reject the 10 tribe theory? ..because it has 3 small mentions of lost tribes living elsewhere. Because it doesn’t have a mass migration? Well if Spalding’s story differed to the Lost tribes myth, to a religious person that would be reason to insert the mention of lost tribes living elsewhere so as to be consistent with the lost tribe myth.

Small or not, that’s the Book of Mormon’s position. You can’t change that. Speculation and ad hoc hypothesizing won’t fix it either. Another obvious reason is that Lehi is not a descendant of the lost tribes, so the Indians aren’t either.

If Splading is not adhering to the Lost tribe in all respects he doesn’t have to concern himself making sure the land was not inhabited previously. That would only be a concern for a religious individual..and so once again, they’d want to insert lost tribes lived elsewhere and take out any mention that Lehi was a lost tribe descendant.

What Jewish characteristic did Smith tap into that would not have been contained in a descendant of a lost tribe member who went to Jerusalem in 720 B.C. ? Spalding does not have to adhere to the myth you are talking about.

It’s you who has to adhere to the ten tribe theory. You can’t bend the theory to fit the Book of Mormon simply because you need to. I know what your motivations for doing it are, but you haven’t a clue as to why Spalding would do such a thing, especially since it doesn’t connect the Indians with the “lost tribes”. It would just make them Jewish, which is what the Book of Mormon says.

The same fictional story of a descendant of a lost tribe ancestry member migrating to America...spalding was fiction, the Book of Mormon was meant as true history both with same overall story lines..except for the lost tribes of Book of Mormon living elsewhere unknown. Ethan Smith’s theory of the migration of all lost tribes en masse deals with lost tribes and where they all went.

This merely repeats what you said and does not respond to what I said. I won’t bother going over it again.

They make it clear in their statements when they reference “lost tribes” they are not talking about a lost tribe myth theory in which millions migrate elsewhere, because they describe Spalding's story as being of a few who migrate.

Again, that is what you think, not what they thought. More likely, they are repeating what they heard reported about the Book of Mormon and the ten tribes, rather than expressing an informed opinion. Other people evidently made the same mistake—not because they were right, or saw something the Mormons didn’t, but because they were sloppy and careless. Sure, what they are saying doesn’t make sense, but is that because they don’t know what they are talking about, or are they expressing a very nuanced knowledge of the theory? The latter seems very unlikely. Their claim that the Indians are descended from the “lost tribes” supports the latter conclusion rather than the former.

You are inferring what Spalding wrote because of what the Book of Mormon says. You are pretending to know what was in Spalding’s MS because you are assuming the witnesses were right, so you are assuming what you are trying to prove. However, it’s not clear how well they knew the contents of the Book of Mormon, and even less clear what they remembered about Spalding’s MS--none specifically discuss the sea voyage. Moreover, if the witnesses were wrong about the Book of Mormon’s contents, they could have also been wrong about Spalding’s MS, so his MS could have been about a mass migration of the ten tribes after all, that is, if you accept the theory of a second MS.

They did not connect the Book of Mormon to the ten tribe myth theory. They said spalding wrote a book about the founding people of America who were a small group from a lost tribe. Perhaps if they'd specified lost tribe ancestry or some other sort of phrasing that would have been better for some nit pickers out to dismiss them. They did not say Spalding followed the lost tribe myth, that is your assertion and it is in my opinion not well warranted. You are asserting that a fictional writer can not deviate from a myth ..this despite the fact that even the Bible deviates from this myth (from what I can tell based upon wiki which I referenced in another post)

Yes, they did connect the Book of Mormon to the ten tribe theory, just not very well. You are trying too hard to bring their views into conformity with yours when you claim above that they connected the Indians with “a lost tribe”. The witnesses clearly and consistently use the plural when referring to the Indians as descended from the “lost tribes”. Again, you are trying to tell your own witnesses how they should testify. No one is nitpicking the witnesses; we are merely insisting that you listen to them.

The Bible takes the tribes to Assyria, but Esdras takes them further. I don’t see that as deviating. A fiction writer can do anything, but that’s not the issue. You don’t get the “lost tribes” in America with the migration of two families from the same tribe. This is what makes the witnesses’ statements so problematic. It seems more likely that the witnesses’ memories were tainted by misinformation about the Book of Mormon, and that they are merely repeating the same illogical assessment given by careless anti-Mormons. For this reason, the witnesses’ memories are unreliable and it’s doubtful that Spalding wrote a migration story about the ten tribes, so it’s pointless going through all this convoluted interpretation, heavy handed manipulation of the witnesses’ statements, and speculation about the contents.

Well Dan, maybe Spalding didn’t believe in any of the myth, thought all the so called lost tribes dispersed and intermingled with the surrounding peoples and that Lehi 's character had a lost tribe ancestry , that is they were of the lost tribe myth even though his ancestry wasn’t lost. Maybe Spalding thought none of the lost tribes were lost...but none the less his characters were still of as lost tribe of the lost tribe myth. And that is what the witnesses recalled. They make it clear they are not referring to “lost tribes” of the myth who are not known where they went to but rather they are referring to a character who is an ancestor of a tribe of the lost tribe myth. They are quite aware that Spalding’s book is only about a few people from Jerusalem migrating to America and if they are well familiar with the myth then looking at the context of their statements when they say "Lost tribe" it is not the lost tribe of the myth in which no one knows where they went but rather the ancestor of someone who was part of the lost tribe. And while that character and his ancestors are not lost, none the less, they are still part of the tribes known to the lost tribe myth. Spalding's story was to show Am Indians were descendants of these people and obviously the witnesses appreciated via the context of their statements that Spalding's characters were not ancestors of some roaming or unknown where to find ...lost tribes.

Wishful thinking. They said “lost tribes” plural—not “lost tribe” singular. According to the Bible, the northern kingdom of Israel was carried away captive to Assyria. Why do you think Spalding would assume an immediate dispersion, rather than a period of captivity in Assyria? There’s no hint in the Book of Mormon that Lehi traces his ancestry to the northern kingdom, let alone to someone who was a captive. Anything can be explained if you have no boundaries on speculation. Stick with the witnesses’ statements.

You are making an argument which forces the lost tribe myth onto what the witnesses say as well as what spalding wrote about, but given the context of their statements they did not think Spalding was confining his story to the mythical story of lost tribes involving millions lost and unknown where they are. And based upon their statements Spalding wasn’t trying to be consistent with the myth which you say they and he would have known. But none the less he represented his characters who migrate to the americas as descendants of one of the tribes which were known by name, the name of a lost tribe per the myth and it’s his family's descendants who are represented in the story as Am. Indian.

My comments about Spalding are hypothetical and for the sake of argument. It really comes down to what the witnesses said. It is standard practice to give historical context to what is said by the witnesses. After all, they are commenting on literary works, and literary works participate in a larger inter-textual discourse. No work is written in isolation without allusions to other works. It doesn’t appear that the witnesses knew the ten tribe theory well enough to intelligently participate in that conversation. That conclusion is reached by knowing what the social discourse was like. The same can be said for anti-Mormons who also thought the Book of Mormon was about the ten tribes theory.

You are expecting too much of the witnesses that they should have explained how spalding's story differed to the lost tribe myth and that they were referring to ancestors of assimilated lost tribes as opposed to unknown whereabouts "lost tribes" per the myth.

This is all you—not the witnesses. You are the only one talking about assimilated lost tribes vs. lost-lost tribes. This conversation is getting really weird. You have absolutely no boundaries for your imagination. I could understand such free wielding speculation if you proceeded from a position that assumed Spalding theory correct—but such things can’t be used as evidence in a critical debate. In my biography of Joseph Smith I engage in speculation also, but I wouldn’t try to turn that speculation into evidence or proof of my position.

It says the following on the wiki page on Book of Mormon "Jesus spoke to the Jews in Jerusalem of “other sheep” who would hear his voice,[68] which the Book of Mormon claims meant that the Nephites and other remnants of the lost tribes of Israel throughout the world were to be visited by Jesus after his resurrection.[69]" So does that mean the Nephites and Lamanites are referred to as remnants of the lost tribes of Israel? So if the Conneaut witnesses could figure out this terminology and said Spalding's book wanted to show that American Indians are descendants of remnants of the lost tribes of Israel then that would have been okay for you?

The Book of Mormon doesn’t use the term “lost tribes” when referring to the Nephites. Rather, the Nephites and Lamanites as also the latter-day Indians are referred to as a “remnant of the house of Israel”.

Cite any witness who says they believed the Book of Mormon was about lost tribes. Not one that I know ever said that. They all only talk about their recollection of spalding’s manuscript.

They said the Book of Mormon was taken from Spalding’s MS didn’t they? They didn’t say Lehi and Nephi were in the Book of Mormon either.

Of course it would be to his benefit to tap into the theory. And contrary to your theory that he needed biblical support..he had support which he created...he was using an "ancient manuscript found" of allegedly true history and he speculated people might believe it as true history. He would have as his explanation that the Am. Indians were descendants of lost tribes which would grab people’s attention, but rather than the tribes dispersing to far corners of the world, he could have them migrate south and intermingle with the southern Israelite population..essentially the lost tribes of the lost tribe myth would become Jews living in Judah.

But he’s writing fiction. The tendency would be to tap into what was already believed about the Indian, not create an artificial authority for a new belief. I hope you realize that your speculation isn’t unlike what the witnesses did—that is, assigning to Spalding things you read in the Book of Mormon. Either way, it doesn’t produce something useful.

Your assumption is that Esdras has authority and a fiction writer couldn't change that myth and it have any plausibilty. But you say, J.Smith & co. can get away with tapping into the lost tribe myth because they are writing scripture and creating their own authority. Well to make the point again, Spalding doesn't present his story as fiction, he presents it as true history found... written by ancient peoples. Smith and Co, do the same thing that he does, except they make their story scriptural.

Come on! One is a novel; the other is supposed to be revelation. There’s no comparison.

Spalding studied the Bible and apparently the Bible gives explanation that this southern migration occurred. Here’s a site explaining where in the Bible this is supported. Ten Lost Tribes: Found So Spalding's idea of presenting 'true history' from ancients would be an interesting way to present a new twist on the lost tribe myth..found in scripture not universally accepted..Book of Esdras.

These passages are all after the return of the Jews to Jerusalem from Babylonian captivity, long after Lehi was gone. None of this has anything to do with Indian origins and the ten tribe theory. We are dealing with people who believed in the “lost tribes”, not those who believe they were not lost. Rather, the Book of Mormon takes an interesting approach, which is different than the ten tribe theory.

I must confess that my interest in engaging you on this subject is waning. This is getting repetitious. I believe I have said enough for anyone reading along to understand my position well enough.

[_Jersey Girl]

The manuscript which we have was apparently obtained from Spaulding's effects at West Amity, Pennsylvania, at some time after the publication of the Book of Mormon, and seems to have been found as a result of a search to find whatever remained of Spaulding's writings in order to throw light on the question of whether he was the author of the Book of Mormon, or not. The manuscript which we have was copied under our supervision and a typewritten copy furnished to the Shepherd Book Company, Salt Lake City, Utah, and also to the Reorganized Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, then located at Lamoni, Iowa. It was printed and sold by both branches of the Mormon Church, who gave it the title "The Manuscript Found"—a title which does not appear in any way on the manuscript, which simply had pencilled upon the papers in which it was wrapped, "Manuscript story, Conneaut Creek."

http://www.oberlin.edu/archive/faq/spaulding_origins.html


Discuss.

[_GlennThigpen]

And as to your conjecture that the witnesses would have known the Lost tribe myth and there is only one accepted lost tribe myth and it has millions migrating to an unknown place on earth..well according to wiki the Bible is not consistent with this mythical theory. See my post http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=440013#p440013 I’ll quote one part of the post which makes it clear that the Bible is not consistent with the myth.

From wiki: “Some evidence exists of a continuing identification in later centuries of individual Jews to the Lost Tribes. For example, in Luke 2:36 of the New Testament, an individual is identified with the tribe of Asher. In recent years many group have claimed descent from these Lost Tribes, some of which have been upheld by Israel's rabbinic authorities.”

So I agree the witnesses might have had some confusion though very minor and understandable, but on the whole the overall consensus was that Spalding’s story was a historical account to explain who first inhabited Americas and that ultimately the blood line of present day was that Am Indians were descendants of these first inhabitants who happened to be a few descendents of a few lost tribes commonly known in the lost tribe myth.

marge, you are still looking at recent literature. There is literature dating from the 1600's promoting the idea that the American Indians descended from the lost tribes. The Bible was even translated into one of the Indian tongues because of the zeal of early settlers to bring to the Indians a knowledge of their supposed ancestry. Books were written about the subject endeavoring to show that all of the different tribes had many traditions and rites reminiscent of the Israelites. James Adair was one. His book History of the American Indians was published in 1775 and was quite influential in furthering that idea. Ethan Smith quotes Adair in his own book, View of the Hebrews. I am going to quote a couple of paragraphs from the VOTH.

n the course of their remarks they add; "To the testimonies here adduced by Doctor Jarvis, (i.e. that the Indians are the ten tribes of Israel,) might have been added several of our New England historians, from the first settlement of the country." Some they proceed to mention; and then add, that the Rev. Messrs. Samuel Sewall, fellow of Harvard College, and Samuel Willard, vice president of the same, were of opinion, that "the Indians are the descendants of Israel." Doct. Jarvis notes this as an hypothesis, which has been a favorite topic with European writers; and as a subject, to which it is hoped the Americans may be said to be waking up at last.

Manasses Ben Israel, in a work entitled "The Hope of Israel," has written to show that the American Indians are the ten tribes of Israel. But as we have access to his authors, we may consult them for ourselves. The main pillar of his evidence is James Adair, Esq. Mr. Adair was a man of established character, as appears from good authority. He lived a trader among the Indians, in the south of North America, for forty years. He left them and returned to England in 1774, and there published his "History of the American Indians;" and his reason for being persuaded that they are the ten tribes of Israel. Remarking on their descent and origin, he concludes thus; "From the most accurate observations I could make, in the long time I traded among the Indian Americans, I was forced to believe them lineally descended from the Israelites. Had the nine tribes and a half of Israel, that were carried off by Shalmanezer, and settled in Media, continued there long, it is very probable by intermarrying with the natives, and from their natural fickleness and proneness to idolatry, and also from the force of example, that they would have adopted and bowed before the gods of Media and Assyria; and would have carried them along with them. But there is not a trace of this idolatry

The Bering Straits as the migration route was the overwhelming favorite also. Smith endeavored to show that it was the route by recounting various Indian legends about the manner in which they came to America.

Those Conneaut witnesses would not have mistaken a story written by Solomon about a few people from one tribe coming to America as a lost tribes story no more than they would have recognized it in the Book of Mormon.
When they heard Solomon read his romance, they heard a story of an ocean trip and a landing in America. They remember Indians and a war between two different nations. When Hurlbut contacts them telling them that he thinks that the Book of Mormon is a rip off of Spalding's story, he tells them what to look for, the names, and the general story line. And sure enough, they find them in the Book of Mormon. Yet, some of the witnesses also remember a lost tribes story, and it is not there in the Book of Mormon. And it was not in Solomon's story. They may have remembered discussions with Solomon on the subject, but if the ideas evinced in that letter found with the Oberlin manuscript is actually from Solomon's pen and heart, Solomon had no such beliefs. He evidently viewed the whole Bible as a myth.

Glenn

[_Jersey Girl]

SPAULDING STORY REFUTED.

We have received the following items from Br. William Small of Philadelphia, in relation to the "Spaulding Story" of the origin of the Book of Mormon. It was written by request of Br. Walmart. W. Blair, while he was in Philadelphia this fall. Br. Small writes as follows:

"While I was living in Pittsburgh in 1841, at the time so much was said of the Book of Mormon, and in connection with the Solomon Spaulding Story. It was stated that the Spaulding manuscript was placed in Mr. Patterson's hands for publication, and that Sidney Rigdon was connected with him at the time. In connection with John E. Page I called upon General Patterson, the publisher, and asked him the following questions, and received his replies as given:

Q. -- Did Sidney Rigdon have any connection with your office at the time you had the Solomon Spaulding manuscript?
A. -- No.

Q. -- Did Sidney Rigdon obtain the Spaulding story at that office?
A. -- No.

He also stated to us that the Solomon Spaulding manuscript was brought to him by the widow of Solomon Spaulding to be published, and that she offered to give him half the profits for his pay, if he would publish it; but after it had laid there for some time, and after he had due time to consider it, he determined not to publish it. She then came and received the manuscript from his hands, and took it away. He also stated that Sidney Rigdon was not connected with the office for several years afterwards. Gen. Patterson also made affidavit to the above statement.
Your brother in Christ,
WILLIAM SMALL."
Philadelphia, Sept. 13th, 1876.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/sain1872.htm#101576


Is this account generally accepted as accurate and authentic?

Why/why not?

[_marg]

Dan: “You keep misrepresenting what the witnesses”
“Quote me:
I’m going by what the witnesses said in their statements and based upon their statements they were talking about a few descendents of lost tribes migrating to America..that’s what they recalled of spalding’s story.

Dan again: As you can see above that’s not what they said. “

My response: Actually that is what they said …I don’t get where you say it’s not.

We know why the Book of Mormon didn’t adhere to the ten tribe theory—because it rejected it altogether

However Dan the lost tribes living elsewhere in the religious sections could easily have been added.

Even if Spalding had given an unique version of the ten tribe theory, it still wouldn’t be the Book of Mormon simply because the Book of Mormon isn’t about the Indians being: “descendants of the Jews, or the lost tribes”; or “descendants of the lost tribes”; or even “some of the lost tribes of Israel.”

That’s what you keep but if Spalding wrote a story rejecting the lost tribe myth as in Esdras of a mass migration to distant lands unihabited…and assumed the lost tribes moved south and intermixed ..then the lost tribes become Jews..and if he had a few migrate to America..the survivors would be descendants of a lost tribe. And as far as I can tell that’s pretty much the story within the Book of Mormon.

Part of the witnesses’ problem was that they probably didn’t know the ten tribe theory well enough to distinguish it from the Book of Mormon, and didn’t read enough of it to correct their mistake. But this brings the value of their testimonies into question.

Well Dan if one doesn’t know much about the lost tribes and one reads the Book of Mormon…”lost tribes” doesn’t even enter one’s mind. I know having done that. So based upon the Book of Mormon there’d be no reason for them to mention lost tribes, and all the more so if they don’t know what the Esdras myth entails.

The author of the Book of Mormon knows the ten tribe theory, asserting that they were still intact in an unknown region of the earth. If you say Spalding didn’t have this view of the ten tribes, then he wasn’t the author of the Book of Mormon.

Yes, I agree the author of theBoM knowing the lost tribe theory, added in the religious sections comments indicating they lived elsewhere. No one is saying he is the author of the Book of Mormon, but rather his book was used to create the Book of Mormon.

You can’t argue that the witnesses couldn’t have held incompatible beliefs,

I’m not arguing that the witnesses couldn’t hold incompatible beliefs, but I am arguing that they aren’t lying. You are accusing them of lying ..you are not accusing them of being confused. What you are saying is they read the Book of Mormon, thought is was about lost tribes myth and then lied in their statements that Spalding wrote about Indians being descendents of lost tribes. And I’m saying they didn’t lie. That enough of them remember “lost tribes” and that can be accounted for quite easily by Spalding not sticking to the Esdras myth but changing it using a literary technique of pretending to find an ancient story to explain how Am Indians got to America and who their ancestry was. And it would jive in one respect with the myth, they would be descendents of a lost tribe. If Spalding started out with many of the lost tribes migrating south and whittled it down to just one family…their recall of lost tribes would be understandable. So I don’t see them as a bunch of liars, whereas you do.

[quote[The myth was tied to Esdras. If Spalding wrote in that genre—which I doubt he did—he would have most likely followed that myth. You have no reason to think he didn’t follow the myth other than the witnesses’ statements, which is circular reasoning. [/quote]

I have reason to think he didn’t follow the myth, based upon the witnesses statements.

One can’t say the Book of Mormon story is the same as Spalding’s and at the same time say the Indians are descendants of the lost tribes. It doesn’t work. Lehi wasn’t any more a descendant of the lost tribes than the apostle Paul was.

They same it’s the same or appeared the same to them with respect to the historical parts. And I can understand how that would be for them, which I’ve explained in a previous post. And of course if Lehi’s ancestry and the other lost tribes in 720 B.C. were believed to have migrated south, then Lehi would be from a lost tribe.

So far, you have only given us your personal ten tribe theory, and projected that onto Spalding.

I don’t have a 10 tribe myth theory. But if I were to speculate that 10 tribes were kicked out of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, I’d speculate they would have moved to surrounding areas. And I see no reason why Spalding wouldn’t have thought similarly. You haven’t given a good justification why he would have had to adhere to the myth completely.

You apparently don’t know the Book of Mormon’s message on this.

What I remember in the Book of Mormon ad nausea..is that morals equated to belief..and that those who believed in God were favored and those who didn’t God punished. So I have no idea what you mean by repent in the following “This was a warning to Jacksonian America to repent or be destroyed like the Nephites.”

Another obvious reason is that Lehi is not a descendant of the lost tribes, so the Indians aren’t either.

That’s because the Book of Mormon was changed from what spalding likely wrote. If you took out the religious sections mention lost tribes lived elsewhere, you’d end up with the survivors being from a lost tribe..ultimately in their ancestry.

but you haven’t a clue as to why Spalding would do such a thing, especially since it doesn’t connect the Indians with the “lost tribes”. It would just make them Jewish, which is what the Book of Mormon says.

The lost tribe migrating south to Judah would become Jewish, but ultimately their descendants from a lost tribe.

More likely, they are repeating what they heard reported about the Book of Mormon and the ten tribes, rather than expressing an informed opinion.

So now your conjecture is it’s not the Book of Mormon which influenced them to lie, but rather other people they heard discussing the Book of Mormon. This despite the fact that in 1833 few people took much if any interest in the Book of Mormon. Missionaries were only just beginning to proselytize. Quite frankly I think they were honest individuals..and would have gained nothing from lying. And one would think someone who knew them would have come forward to inform that they had lied, but everyone later, confirmed that these witnesses were convinced that Spalding’s work had been used.

Wishful thinking. They said “lost tribes” plural—not “lost tribe” singular.

Oi vey…if Spalding started with Lost tribes…then they’d be correct.

Why do you think Spalding would assume an immediate dispersion, rather than a period of captivity in Assyria?

Well why does this site or individual and they are basing it on the Bible? http://revive-israel.org/2001/ten_lost_tribes.htm “The truth of the matter is that there are no lost ten tribes. During the time of the kingdom division and the captivities, a certain percentage of each of the northern tribes came down and took up residence in the area of Judah. After that time the name Judah or the Jews referred not only to the specific tribe of Judah but also to the Benjaminites, the Levites and the remnant of all the northern tribes.”

There’s no hint in the Book of Mormon that Lehi traces his ancestry to the northern kingdom

How could be of the Tribe of Joseph if he wasn’t connected to a lost tribe?

It doesn’t appear that the witnesses knew the ten tribe theory well enough to intelligently participate in that conversation.

Well they aren’t carrying on much of a conversation if their recall is Spalding wanted to portray the Am Indians as being descendants lost tribes and that’s their only mention. And if they didn’t know lost tribe myth, then it’s doubtful they would have noticed “lost tribes” in Book of Mormon. And as far as other people telling them..well John spalding says..Jew or lost tribes..so if he’s lying because someone told him, why not stick with “lost tribes. And then 3 other mention lost tribes..but not the other 4. But it’s not as if the other 4 statements would contradict “lost tribes” involvement in the story.

The Book of Mormon doesn’t use the term “lost tribes” when referring to the Nephites. Rather, the Nephites and Lamanites as also the latter-day Indians are referred to as a “remnant of the house of Israel”.

They said the Book of Mormon was taken from Spalding’s MS didn’t they? They didn’t say Lehi and Nephi were in the Book of Mormon either.

Yes they did say Lehi and Nephi was in the Book of Mormon because they read or looked at it and from looking at it, it brought back their recollection of those names in Spalding’s book. But they never said it was from reading the Book of Mormon that they recollected Spalding’s book involved lost tribes. And they mentioned the religious parts Spalding didn’t have…and it likely is that lost tribe mention being elsewhere where Jesus can minister them is in what they viewed as religious parts.

So it’s incorrect for you to say they believe the Book of Mormon was about lost tribes. That’s your wishful thinking because it fits in with your argument.

But he’s writing fiction. The tendency would be to tap into what was already believed about the Indian, not create an artificial authority for a new belief. I hope you realize that your speculation isn’t unlike what the witnesses did—that is, assigning to Spalding things you read in the Book of Mormon.

Well he would be tapping into what was believed of Indians..they descended from lost tribes. The Bible is simply books written by people in ancient times, so if he wants to change the myth and have only a family migrate with ancestry of a lost tribe he can do so, by saying it’s based on writings of people in ancient times.

Come on! One is a novel; the other is supposed to be revelation. There’s no comparison.

Actually Spalding’s approach is more believable than revelation. Revelation involves the supernatural, spalding’s approach of finding a lost manuscript written by ancients is much more plausible to be likely true.

I must confess that my interest in engaging you on this subject is waning. This is getting repetitious. I believe I have said enough for anyone reading along to understand my position well enough.

I do sympathize with you to some extent Dan, because you’ve obviously spent a lot of time writing history. And you get criticisms all the time on an issue involving religion which for many people becomes emotionally motivated. I’m sorry to say though and I wish it were not the case..but I don’t agree with your rejection of a Spalding manuscript having been used to create the Book of Mormon.

I can fully understand not wanting to continue, these discussion are extremely time consuming and one wonders whether anything of benefit comes of them. And someone such as myself who comes at this essentially with a blank slate must seem very ignorant and not worth discussing with. That’s okay I can appreciate that.