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

[_GlennThigpen]

No, she is fighting on three fronts. She is having difficulty with the concept that the witnesses to MF(and Lost) did not have perfect recollection, and that the beginning of the Book of Mormon was rewritten, so necessarily wouldn't be as exact a match as Mosiah and after.

I don't think she is Dale's wife, she would have a much stronger background. I got an e-mail from Dale, no mention of a health set-back. I think he is letting me do my own thing in my conversation with Dan, which has been very rewarding.

Responding to your last comments first. Did someone opine that marge is Dale's wife? I must have missed that.

I am not sure that I understand your first comments. The Conneaut witnesses exhibit very little knowledge of any part of the Book of Mormon after the 1 and 2 Nephi, and very superficial knowledge of those.

I have been doing a bit of thinking and additional reading concerning the witnesses and the lost tribes, as well as Solomon himself. I am trying to reconcile the different time lines for Solomon beginning his romance. Oliver Smith says that he was working on something while staying with him when Solomon first came to the area, which John Spalding said was in 1809. Several others have put Solomon beginning the story sometime in 1812. Those include Abner Jackson, Josiah Spalding, and John Spalding.
Then, there is the story of the lost tribes.
I have asked myself the question, just when (approximately) did Solomon lose his faith in the Bible? He seemingly had some beliefs in it at one time since he actually studied for the ministry and is reported by his brothers to have become a Congregationalist preacher for a while. Yet, in an unfinished letter that appears to be in Solomon's handwriting that was found with the Oberlin manuscript, he said:

I disavow any belief in the divinity of the Bible and consider it a mere human production designed to enrich and aggrandize its authors and to enable them to manage the multitude.....Such being my view of the subject I suffer my candle to remain under, nor make no exertions to dissipate their happy delusions.

So, did Solomon actually begin a lost tribes story at some point in his life which some of the Conneaut witnesses saw? Did he actually discuss ideas that the lost tribes migrated to the Americas and became the ancestors of the American Indians. Then did he, up to his ears in debt, failing in health, and receiving no help from divine providence, lose his faith and rip that story to shreds, then later begin another document, about a Roman being blown off course and winding up in the Americas to witness the gentle interactions of the Kentucks and the Siotans?

Dale has mentioned the possibility that Solomon did start a lost tribes story before changing his mind and going to something else. There might be something to it.

However, that does not help the S/R theory at all. The manuscript that Matilda Spalding Davison said that he was writing in 1812 she also said fell into her hands and she carefully preserved it, along with some of his sermons and short stories.

There have been those who have speculated that Hurlbut retrieved more than one major document from the trunk, but his wife, Maria, denied it according to William Kelley in the 1884 Braden vs Kelley debate.

He quotes her as saying

Mr. Hurlbut never obtained but one manuscript from Mrs. Davison. That one he let E. D. Howe have. When Mrs. (Spaulding) Davison let him have it, he said he promised to return it; and when he let Howe have it, Howe promised to restore it to Mrs. Spaulding, but he never did. Hulburt spent about six months time and a good deal of money looking up the Spaulding manuscript and other evidence, but he was disappointed in not finding what he wanted. This was the reason he turned the whole thing over to Howe. He never was satisfied with what he found, and while on his death-bed he would have given everything he had in the world, could he have been certain there was ever a "Manuscript Found," as claimed, similar to the Book of Mormon

Glenn

[_MCB]

I am not sure that I understand your first comments. The Conneaut witnesses exhibit very little knowledge of any part of the Book of Mormon after the 1 and 2 Nephi, and very superficial knowledge of those.

Of course. All that they witnessed was the beginning of the story. He left Conneaut before he had finished it.

[_GlennThigpen]

I am not sure that I understand your first comments. The Conneaut witnesses exhibit very little knowledge of any part of the Book of Mormon after the 1 and 2 Nephi, and very superficial knowledge of those.

Of course. All that they witnessed was the beginning of the story. He left Conneaut before he had finished it.

Didn't realize that he had finished it. The document ends on page 172.

Glenn

[_Jersey Girl]

Didn't realize that he had finished it. The document ends on page 172.

Glenn

You mean the document referred to in this piece?

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

Do you think the above refers to the same unfinished Oberlin Manuscript?

[_Roger]

Glenn writes:

So, did Solomon actually begin a lost tribes story at some point in his life which some of the Conneaut witnesses saw? Did he actually discuss ideas that the lost tribes migrated to the Americas and became the ancestors of the American Indians.

I think so.

Then did he, up to his ears in debt, failing in health, and receiving no help from divine providence, lose his faith and rip that story to shreds, then later begin another document, about a Roman being blown off course and winding up in the Americas to witness the gentle interactions of the Kentucks and the Siotans?

I doubt if he ripped the story to shreds.

Dale has mentioned the possibility that Solomon did start a lost tribes story before changing his mind and going to something else. There might be something to it.

However, that does not help the S/R theory at all. The manuscript that Matilda Spalding Davison said that he was writing in 1812 she also said fell into her hands and she carefully preserved it, along with some of his sermons and short stories.

It doesn't appear that Matilda was terribly interested in and/or familiar with her husband's writings (for the sake of the underlying thesis at least) until the controversy erupted decades after his death.

There have been those who have speculated that Hurlbut retrieved more than one major document from the trunk, but his wife, Maria, denied it according to William Kelley in the 1884 Braden vs Kelley debate.

The body of evidence makes more sense if that is what happened.

He quotes her as saying

Mr. Hurlbut never obtained but one manuscript from Mrs. Davison. That one he let E. D. Howe have. When Mrs. (Spalding) Davison let him have it, he said he promised to return it; and when he let Howe have it, Howe promised to restore it to Mrs. Spalding, but he never did. Hulburt spent about six months time and a good deal of money looking up the Spalding manuscript and other evidence, but he was disappointed in not finding what he wanted. This was the reason he turned the whole thing over to Howe. He never was satisfied with what he found, and while on his death-bed he would have given everything he had in the world, could he have been certain there was ever a "Manuscript Found," as claimed, similar to the Book of Mormon

The problem is, if that is actually what happened, then how do we account for the testimonies of Briggs and Dowen? And how do we account for the parallels between Smith's discovery narrative and Spalding's? I know Ben chalks that up to coincidence but that simply doesn't work for me.

Hurlbut's own account of this doesn't add up. Look again at what Maria says:

Hulburt spent about six months time and a good deal of money looking up the Spalding manuscript and other evidence...

So are we to believe Hurlbut when he tells us that after he had spent a significant amount of time and money and single-minded effort that he DID NOT actually read the manuscript he pulled from the trunk until he "got home"? Are we to believe he told the Palmyra newspaper editor (Tucker, I think) that he had accomplished the aim of his mission, BEFORE examining the manuscript and noticing no reference to Lehi or Nephi?

Something doesn't add up. But all the (seemingly contradictory) testimony falls into place if he pulled both MF and MSCC out of the trunk and then was later forced to hand over/sell MF to Smith.

[_GlennThigpen]

Didn't realize that he had finished it. The document ends on page 172.

Glenn

You mean the document referred to in this piece?

Spalding STORY REFUTED.

We have received the following items from Br. William Small of Philadelphia, in relation to the "Spalding 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 Spalding Story. It was stated that the Spalding 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 Spalding manuscript?
A. -- No.

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

He also stated to us that the Solomon Spalding manuscript was brought to him by the widow of Solomon Spalding 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

Do you think the above refers to the same unfinished Oberlin Manuscript?

Yes.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

Something doesn't add up. But all the (seemingly contradictory) testimony falls into place if he pulled both MF and MSCC out of the trunk and then was later forced to hand over/sell MF to Smith.

Roger, why would he have been forced to hand over the manuscript to Smith and company? There is absolutely no evidence that such was the case. Hurlbut denied that himself.
If he had such a manuscript, why was it not produced at the trial? An excellent opportunity to see Joseph go down in flames in a legal proceeding with a full house audience. Rather, it was Hurlbut that went down in flames.

You can account for Brigg's statement the same way that you can account for his statement that it was Hurlbut that brought the complaint against Joseph. Please update on Dowen's statement.

Glenn

[Guest]

Hurlbut did not have the right qualifications for the job. The Mormon leaders knew him, and what buttons to push.

Exactly what Spalding material was recovered by Hurlbut and exhibited in his 1833-34 lectures remains debatable. It is certain that he recovered the *untitled Spalding Ms now in the Oberlin College Archives, and that along with the Ms he brought back what appears to be an undated and unfinished or draft copy of a letter written in Spalding's handwriting and containing a *statement of his views on religion. The summary on *page 299 of the Howe book matches the essentials, if not all the pariculars, of the Oberlin Ms. This is clearly the same work read by Spalding's brother Josiah in 1812 and described by him in his *letter to George Chapman, dated Jan. 6, 1855, cit. Samuel J. Spalding, The Spalding Memorial (Boston: Alfred Budge & Son, 1872) pp. 160-162. The story remembered and summarized by Josiah after more than forty years differs considerably from one recalled by Solomon's friends and relatives as little as twenty years after [their] encountering it. Others who read Spalding's story, whether in Ohio, or later in Pennsylvania, recalled a tale of Israelite colonization of America which read very much like parts of the Book of Mormon and which contained similar or identical character names.

A Kirtland Justice of the Peace, John C. Dowen, claimed that Hurlbut recovered this Israelite story and exhibited the Ms during his first lectures in Kirtland following his return from the east. This appears to have been at the Kirtland Methodist Church in late December, 1833. Dowen further claimed to have personally compared this Ms to the Book of Mormon and found their historical narratives to have been the same. * Statement of J. C. Dowen, Jan. 20, 1885, Willoughby, Ohio. Original in Deming Chicago file.

Another Ohio resident, James A. Briggs, confirmed Dowen's testimony in a *March, 1875 letter to writer John Codman. Briggs claimed to have seen Hurlbut exhibit a Spalding Ms with names and features identical with those in the Book of Mormon, cit. John Godman's "Mormonism," The International Review XI (Sept., 1881) pp. 222-223. Briggs expanded this odd testimony in his *January 29, 1886 letter to the New York Tribune and in a *March 22, 1886 letter to Joseph Smith III, adding that Hurlbut initially exhibited both the Ms cited by Howe and a second Ms greatly resembling the Book of Mormon, at the home of Warren Corning, jr. in Mentor, following his return from the east, cit. Naked Truths About Mormonism 1, Jan. 1888. Briggs reaffirmed this testimony in a *letter to the N.Y. Watchman, cit. Chicago Daily Tribune Oct. 2, 1886. As late as 1888 Briggs was promoting the idea that there had been at least two Spalding works and that the one given to Howe was not the same as the one greatly resembling the Book of Mormon, New York Times Feb. 27, 1888.

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRP13p2.htm#Refs2

[_MCB]

Now I am very sure he had the identical story that you have printed with him. I remember about the ancient fort at Conneaut Creek, the mound, and the statement of finding the manuscript about the Indians. I have no doubt that Hurlbut, as he says, gave the story to Mr. E.D. Howe. But I believe he had also with him, and we had before us in that investigation, the original "Manuscript Found" written by Rev. Solomon Spaulding. I have said and believed for more than fifty years that I have seen and had in my hands the original "Manuscript Found" from which the Mormon Bible was made.

I have no doubt we had the "Manuscript Found" before us, that we compared it with the Mormon Bible, that the style in which the "Manuscript Found" was written was the same as that of the Mormon Bible. The names -- peculiar -- were the same, not to be forgotten. The names Lehi, Nephi, Maroni, etc., and the expression "and it came to pass" often repeated. This manuscript did not go to Mr. Howe. What did Hurlbut do with it?

Some few years ago I wrote to him and asked him who had it -- what he did with it. He did not answer my letter. He received it, as [it was] not returned to me. Dr. Hurlbut died in Ohio two years ago last June. He is silent now, the grave closed over him . . .

Briggs' statement, same link.

[_MCB]

In Deming's case, a few supporting documents have survived which better enable one to evaluate his competence as an historian. In the Chicago Historical Society are the original of one published deposition and other [p.65] statements which Deming had no opportunity to publish.6 None support Anderson's allegation that Deming led his witnesses or improperly edited their remarks. The original statement of K. E. Bell, published in the first issue of Deming's newspaper, seems to be in Bell's own hand and is signed by the author, witnessed by another person, and notarized by a justice of the peace. It does not differ significantly from the printed version.

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/york/chapter5.htm

As soon as I get the money, I will head down to Chicago to the Historical Society and look at the Deming file.

http://www.chsmedia.org:8081/ipac20/ipa ... =~!horizon