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

[_marg]

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.

Glenn, I appreciate the lost tribe myth was a legitimate myth that some people truly believed.

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.

As I explained to Dan, if your argument is the conneaut witnesses mention of lost tribes was because they "thought" "the Book of Mormon was about lost tribes, then you are accusing them of lying. That's not simply a matter of confusion, that's deliberate deception. Yet no neighbour or anyone about town who knew them, no later witnesses ever said they lied. No Mormon ever located a witness who knew them o say they lied.

So there is this business with "lost tribes" which both you and Dan argue, they only said because they thought that's what the Book of Mormon was about, not because of the contents of the Book of Mormon which don't give that away but because of what they'd heard others incorrectly assuming. And my argument is that they said what they did about lost tribe connection, because that was what Spalding either told them or was in his story. And my speculation is that Spalding changed the myth to instead of a mass migration ..a family who had lost tribe ancestry. And he did that by competing with the biblical myth by setting it up as part of his storyline that the author had found a manuscript buried written by ancient peoples. So it gave an air of authenticity to the story..and the Bible is not more than what people in ancient times wrote.

So the witnesses mere mention of lost tribes I believe was not because they were lying...they seemed on the whole pretty darn truthful, not particularly anti Mormon or even interested in Mormonism individuals..but they said it because that's what they recalled. And I think they recalled correctly. Others may argue they shouldn't be relied upon whereas I think they offer extremely good evidence and find for the most part their statements are fairly consistent. I find the reason for their dismissal tend to be nit picky type reason, and that includes this "lost tribe"business.

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.

No sorry Hurlbut can not tell all of them and then they find it in the Book of Mormon..that means they are lying..Hurlbut can not easily as you make out, create a confusion as to what was in Spalding's book and what wasn't. And your argument makes little sense because it would means Hurlbut told them the Book of Mormon involved lost tribe ancestry for am. Indians.

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.

So why is Hurblut telling them it's about a lost tribe 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.

Right he viewed the Bible as myth, as well as the lost tribe Esdras story as myth. But see my above as to why he still connected the Am Indians to lost tribes.

[_GlennThigpen]

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.

No sorry Hurlbut can not tell all of them and then they find it in the Book of Mormon..that means they are lying..Hurlbut can not easily as you make out, create a confusion as to what was in Spalding's book and what wasn't. And your argument makes little sense because it would means Hurlbut told them the Book of Mormon involved lost tribe ancestry for am. Indians.

It very well could mean that that they really did not remember Solomon's tale all that well and Hurlbut's suggestions set them up for memory confabulation. They could have been lying also. Matilda Davison certainly was not cued the way the Conneaut witnesses were, although she had read some of the Book of Mormon.
It does not mean that Hurlbut told them that the Book of Mormon involved lost tribe ancestry for the American Indians. It would mean that they had heard and maybe been involved with discussions about that subject, and not remembering a heck of a lot of details, which several of them admitted, they connected it to some conversations with Solomon and his story. There is not record of Hurlbut being of that opinion or even any record of him discussing it.

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.

So why is Hurblut telling them it's about a lost tribe story.

I did not say he did. I doubt that he did, or it would have been picked up by other witnesses. The lost tribes story is not shared by all of the witnesses. Spalding's story was not about the lost tribes coming to the America's and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians. It is a confabulation by four of the witnesses with other discussions and materials.

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.

Right he viewed the Bible as myth, as well as the lost tribe Esdras story as myth. But see my above as to why he still connected the Am Indians to lost tribes.

marge, When Martha Spalding says that "He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel" is she telling the truth, or is she maybe confusing her sources a bit?? Did Solomon actually make such a contention, even though he did not believe it? In other words, was Solomon a liar?

Glenn

[_marg]

Hi Glenn,

It feels that I’m going in circles in our discussions, most of your post if I respond I think I’d be rehashing reasoning I’ve offered in previous posts. So I’ll make this brief.

When Martha Spalding says that "He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel" is she telling the truth, or is she maybe confusing her sources a bit?? Did Solomon actually make such a contention, even though he did not believe it? In other words, was Solomon a liar?

No Solomon was not a liar…what would he be lying about? I speculate that he created a another different myth, by adding to a previous myth. Sort of like how the writers of the N.T. used the O.T. as a base and created a new story by a different interpretation of the mythical stories in the O.T. and added more mythical stories. Similarly the writers of the Book of Mormon used the Bible as a based which gave them a ready primed group of believers as potential converts and created a different interpretation of the Bible and added more mythical stories. Well Spalding used the lost tribe myth of Esdras but changed it and added more and used as authority..that it was based upon a found ancient manuscript.

[_MCB]

Marg, good post. You finally broke out of that circle. I have been working unusually late. Too many interruptions during the day.

[_marg]

Marg, good post. You finally broke out of that circle. I have been working unusually late. Too many interruptions during the day.

So you think that's a fair analogy? Dan has asked why would Spalding use the lost tribes myth as set out by an Esdras passage but change it in some key respects if his intended market are Christian who know that passage and Glenn asks the same. Well why would the Book of Mormon writers change and add to the Bible in key respects if their intended markets are Christians who believe the Bible as is, and why would the N.T. writers change and add to the O.T. if there were so many believers in the O.T. Dan I believe argued if it's presented as divine revelation people can get away with it, but why should that be? Why couldn't someone who presents a story as true history...found written by some ancient people...get away with it as well or at least think their story would be very plausible and believed by many? Why must it only be those who invoke the authority of God to be the ones who can get away with changing myths and storyline of others - which is what I believe Dan argued or at least along that line of reasoning?

[_MCB]

However, the Old Testament to New Testament versus the New Testament to Book of Mormon analogy is weaker to me, as a Catholic. For non-Christians it is legitimate. The New Testament is not a fiction, but the Book of Mormon is.

[_marg]

However, the Old Testament to New Testament versus the New Testament to Book of Mormon analogy is weaker to me, as a Catholic. For non-Christians it is legitimate. The New Testament is not a fiction, but the Book of Mormon is.

Well here's another analogy, for the Hebrews..the N.T. idea of Jesus being divine, a son of God and being born of a virgin and their rejection of that which is the essence of the N.T. is analogous to your rejection of the Book of Mormon.

[_GlennThigpen]

No Solomon was not a liar…what would he be lying about? I speculate that he created a another different myth, by adding to a previous myth. Sort of like how the writers of the N.T. used the O.T. as a base and created a new story by a different interpretation of the mythical stories in the O.T. and added more mythical stories. Similarly the writers of the Book of Mormon used the Bible as a based which gave them a ready primed group of believers as potential converts and created a different interpretation of the Bible and added more mythical stories. Well Spalding used the lost tribe myth of Esdras but changed it and added more and used as authority..that it was based upon a found ancient manuscript.

But once he changed the story to that point it would no longer be a lost tribes story. According to the witnesses, he was advocating the lost tribes as ancestors of the American Indians. But, according to your theory, he was writing a vastly different scene, one in which a few people who were descendants of the head of one of the lost tribes came to America and became the ancestors of the American Indians. This would not have been recognized as a lost tribes story by those witnesses.
And, for Solomon to actually be writing about that, this is a themes that should have been apparent to all of the witnesses. But it is mentioned by only four.

And the timeline is still messed up. According to S/R theory, Solomon began writing the Roman story first, then, according to Aron Wright, "altered his plan and commenced writing a history of the first Settlement of America."

The devil is in the details though, because Oliver Smith says that he was writing the "Manuscript Found" when he first came to the area. Oliver claims that Solomon stayed with him during that time, maybe six months. If he was already writing that story in late 1809 and early 1810, when did he alter that plan and begin his new story?
Why then would Josiah Spalding be exposed to the Roman story in 1812, when everyone else is talking about the alleged "Manuscript Found" during that period of time?

Glenn

[_MCB]

Marg;

Valid for you. :) No problem for me. You aren't Mrs. B, are you?

[_marg]

No Solomon was not a liar…what would he be lying about? I speculate that he created a another different myth, by adding to a previous myth. Sort of like how the writers of the N.T. used the O.T. as a base and created a new story by a different interpretation of the mythical stories in the O.T. and added more mythical stories. Similarly the writers of the Book of Mormon used the Bible as a based which gave them a ready primed group of believers as potential converts and created a different interpretation of the Bible and added more mythical stories. Well Spalding used the lost tribe myth of Esdras but changed it and added more and used as authority..that it was based upon a found ancient manuscript.

But once he changed the story to that point it would no longer be a lost tribes story.

You mean it's no longer in line with the biblical Esdras. So this is sort of like Christians saying Mormonism isn't Christian. To them Mormons have changed the storyline..and it's no longer Christianity, their version. And what do you argue against that Glenn. Do you agree with them or do you still argue it's Christianity. So why would you assume the witnesses would think that just because Spalding changed the version in Esdras, that it's no longer about lost tribes? They don't need to involved themselves in all this minutia that you are arguing. If Spalding mentioned his story was that Indians were descended via blood line from lost tribes..then that's all they need, they don't need to analyze how he may have veered off from the original myth.

According to the witnesses, he was advocating the lost tribes as ancestors of the American Indians. But, according to your theory, he was writing a vastly different scene, one in which a few people who were descendants of the head of one of the lost tribes came to America and became the ancestors of the American Indians.

He changed the myth, I don't know how he changed it I can only speculate but when all the witnesses recall lost tribes being ancestors..well then I don't think they are all mistaken. I think there is a reason. and I don't accept they lied, not knowing the Book of Mormon but because others told them the Book of Mormon was about lost tribes. I also don't accept that the Book of Mormon has absolutely nothing to do with lost tribes. From my point of view, because I don't hold to the myth, the fact that Lehi and family and friends had blood lines to the lost tribes, is enough to have a connection. There is a connection which explains why some people think it's about lost tribes, if there was no connection that mistake wouldn't be made even by knowledgeable scholarly who Dan pointed out.

This would not have been recognized as a lost tribes story by those witnesses.

If Spalding said his story was about Indians being descendant about Lost tribes then it's understandable for them to mention this. You are the one getting into minutea, and the reason you are doing it is because you are looking for any reason at all to dismiss them. Why is it they have to be experts on lost tribes, when that's not their focus and they are simply recalling the fictional storyline of Spalding, who has I pointed out could have changed and added to the myth?

And, for Solomon to actually be writing about that, this is a themes that should have been apparent to all of the witnesses. But it is mentioned by only four.

Once again, I've pointed this out in the past, if they contradict each then you have a point, the fact that some don't mention lost tribes is not a contradiction. And when there are contradictions sure sometimes it could be accounted for by faulty memory, perhaps lying, perhaps even Spalding changing or evolving his story over time and some witnessess being exposed to additions others weren't.

And the timeline is still messed up. According to S/R theory, Solomon began writing the Roman story first, then, according to Aron Wright, "altered his plan and commenced writing a history of the first Settlement of America."

I fail to see where the time line is messed up. He said:

.. this is therefore to
inform you that I have made a statement
to D P Hurlbut relative to Writings of S Spalding
Esq. SD Hurlbut is now at my store I have
603
examined the writings which he has obtained
from SD Spaldings widowe I recognize them to
be the writings handwriting of SD Spalding but not
the Manuscript I had refferance to in my statement
before alluded to as he informed me he wrote in the
first place he wrote for his own amusement and
then altered his plan and commenced writing a
history of the first Settlement of America.

By history of first settlement it implies an explanation how America was settled, the MSCC doesn't do that.

The devil is in the details though, because Oliver Smith says that he was writing the "Manuscript Found" when he first came to the area. Oliver claims that Solomon stayed with him during that time, maybe six months. If he was already writing that story in late 1809 and early 1810, when did he alter that plan and begin his new story?
Why then would Josiah Spalding be exposed to the Roman story in 1812, when everyone else is talking about the alleged "Manuscript Found" during that period of time?

Well Josiah doesn't mention Spalding reading to him or to anyone and Josiah is recalling memory 43 years after the event and he's 90 years old...we've been through this before Glenn. If spalding was writing for all of them it would be difficult to differentiate when or if he stopped writing MSCC. How would they really know when he stopped. As far as when he started, that too how would they really know when he started. What they would know if what they were exposed to, but even that one would have to appreciate that dates are confusable. However of course, witnesses exposed when he lived in one area versus another would not be a matter of recall of date when we can verify from an outside source when that occurred.

I really must pull away from this at least this weekend, so if I don't respond you'll know why.
Glenn[/quote]