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

[_MCB]

I would consider it a possibility that Solomon may have made some notes on the lost tribes legend and discussed them with other people, at least before he lost his faith.

What do you really know about the lost 116 pages? Please be specific.

Glenn

Nothing direct about the lost 116. I would suggest that you read the Tanner's "Black Hole." The replacement section (I and II Nephi and Jacob and some of the "small plates" material) contain very few Clavigero and Norse parallels. Later books are rich with parallels to them, and other literature available in that time.

Schacter has some excellent insights about memory. Following those insights, I would gently suggest that you review this thread.

[_Dan Vogel]

Glenn,

If he ever wrote or had any idea of writing a lost tribes story, it very well could have influenced him, that is if he actually believed in the lost tribes myth in 1812.

Morse discusses several theories (the lost tribes of Israel not being one of them, so far as I can tell), but defends the Asiatic-Bering Strait theory. If Spalding was influenced by this book, it would have discouraged him from adopting a lost tribes theory. In fact, Spalding’s only extant MS shows that he preferred the learned approach to Indian history rather than a fanciful one.

[_Dan Vogel]

MCB,

We don't know if he knew about the lost 116.

Of course he new about it—it was discussed in the front of every Book of Mormon.

Upon the first submission, Spalding may have received some advice on how to radically modify it, without a contract. But she then submitted it after the author had died. Therefore, submission followed by a contract to finish was impossible.

But the reasons for publication had changed.

[_MCB]

Spalding’s only extant MS shows a fanciful approach to Indian history, patterned after Romeo and Juliet. S/R people don't know exactly was in "Manuscript Found (and Lost)." We differ, however. You believe that it never existed.

Of course he new about it—it was discussed in the front of every Book of Mormon.

Sorry. I skipped over that.

When Hurlbut finally obtained S. Spalding's manuscript:

"I just peeked into it, here and there, and saw the names Moroni, Lamanite, Lephi, I thought it was all nonsense. If it had been the real one, I could have sold it tor $3000; but I just gave it to Howe because it was of no account." (Dickenson, 1885, p. 67)

Apparently, he thought that one manuscript could have been a forgery by anti-Mormons, and the other (Oberlin Manuscript Story) was obviously not directly related to the Book of Mormon.

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn,

If he ever wrote or had any idea of writing a lost tribes story, it very well could have influenced him, that is if he actually believed in the lost tribes myth in 1812.

Morse discusses several theories (the lost tribes of Israel not being one of them, so far as I can tell), but defends the Asiatic-Bering Strait theory. If Spalding was influenced by this book, it would have discouraged him from adopting a lost tribes theory. In fact, Spalding’s only extant MS shows that he preferred the learned approach to Indian history rather than a fanciful one.

Thanks for the information Dan. I got a bit off track with MCB with that. My original post was quoting Abner Jackson for marge to try to show her what those witnesses during that period of time would have understood by a lost tribes story. It is the most direct and explicit statement that any of the witnesses have made that I can find. It should leave no question marks in anyone's mind.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

When Hurlbut finally obtained S. Spalding's manuscript:

"I just peeked into it, here and there, and saw the names Moroni, Lamanite, Lephi, I thought it was all nonsense. If it had been the real one, I could have sold it tor $3000; but I just gave it to Howe because it was of no account." (Dickenson, 1885, p. 67)

Apparently, he thought that one manuscript could have been a forgery by anti-Mormons, and the other (Oberlin Manuscript Story) was obviously not directly related to the Book of Mormon.

That statement by Hurlbut makes absolutely no sense as it stands. If Hurlbut had indeed peeked into the Manuscript and saw those names, he would have known that he had the real thing and would have been showing it to the world.
He went on a speaking tour and supposedly read from it and the Book of Mormon to prove that the Book of Mormon had plagiarized its historical matter from Solomon's story, but he did not actually show it to the people in those audiences.

If there was one little word inserted into his statement, it would make perfect sense. "I just peeked into it, here and there, and" never "saw the names Moroni, Lamanite, Lephi, I thought it was all nonsense. If it had been the real one, I could have sold it tor $3000; but I just gave it to Howe because it was of no account."

I would not be surprised if that word was actually there originally, but, due to some editorial slip of the pen, was deleted.

Glenn

[_MCB]

"never"

I would not be surprised if that word was actually there originally, but, due to some editorial slip of the pen, was deleted.

That makes sense from your point of view. That statement is certainly difficult to decipher.

I will take another look at the context.

[_Roger]

Glenn:

That statement by Hurlbut makes absolutely no sense as it stands. If Hurlbut had indeed peeked into the Manuscript and saw those names, he would have known that he had the real thing and would have been showing it to the world.
He went on a speaking tour and supposedly read from it and the Book of Mormon to prove that the Book of Mormon had plagiarized its historical matter from Solomon's story, but he did not actually show it to the people in those audiences.

If there was one little word inserted into his statement, it would make perfect sense. "I just peeked into it, here and there, and" never "saw the names Moroni, Lamanite, Lephi, I thought it was all nonsense. If it had been the real one, I could have sold it tor $3000; but I just gave it to Howe because it was of no account."

I would not be surprised if that word was actually there originally, but, due to some editorial slip of the pen, was deleted.

The significance of one word! You're right, that one little word would change everything! Problem is, it does not appear and Dickinson never later indicates that it should.

You're also right that it doesn't make sense as is.

If Hurlbut had indeed peeked into the Manuscript and saw those names, he would have known that he had the real thing and would have been showing it to the world.

Agreed. But he allegedly was showing it to the public during his very limited engagements prior to his trial while boasting that this was going to destroy Smith and Mormonism. Hardly the actions we would expect from a guy who thinks the ms he obtained "was of no account."

It is also quite odd that he should put a value of 3k on it if it WOULD HAVE BEEN the correct manuscript! He seems to magically pull that figure out of thin air. How does he know how much he could have sold the real one for?

Both Dowen and Briggs agree that it contained the correct names. That is the key point and easily verifiable.

but he did not actually show it to the people in those audiences.

And how do you know that? I seem to remember statements indicating that he did show it during his short Kirtland area exposé tour.

While no explanation (including the official account or Smith alone) makes perfect sense of all the competing statements and seemingly contradictory actions, Hurlbut finding two ms's and selling the real one to the Mormons seems to fit the data and statements quite well.

[_Dan Vogel]

MCB,

Spalding’s only extant MS shows a fanciful approach to Indian history, patterned after Romeo and Juliet. S/R people don't know exactly was in "Manuscript Found (and Lost)." We differ, however. You believe that it never existed.

I know it’s a fictional work. What I meant was, it’s based on information about Indian history in the Great Lakes Region, at leas how it was understood at the time—hence, his reference to “the Deliwares”, “Ohons”, “Siota River”, “Siotans”, “River Ohio”, “Kentucks”, “wigwams”, etc. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, makes no connection with the reader’s world except through prophecy.

When Hurlbut finally obtained S. Spalding's manuscript:

"I just peeked into it, here and there, and saw the names Moroni, Lamanite, Lephi, I thought it was all nonsense. If it had been the real one, I could have sold it tor $3000; but I just gave it to Howe because it was of no account." (Dickenson, 1885, p. 67)

Apparently, he thought that one manuscript could have been a forgery by anti-Mormons, and the other (Oberlin Manuscript Story) was obviously not directly related to the Book of Mormon.

I like Glenn’s response. Moreover, I don’t believe he recovered two MS. That’s why I quoted what he wrote on the last page of the only MS he recovered. From that statement, he initially thought the Oberlin MS was the one described by his witnesses. If there was another MS, he wouldn’t have written his statement without looking at the other MS first.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Agreed. But he allegedly was showing it to the public during his very limited engagements prior to his trial while boasting that this was going to destroy Smith and Mormonism. Hardly the actions we would expect from a guy who thinks the ms he obtained "was of no account."

The statement he wrote on the Oberlin MS indicates that he for a time thought it was the MS described by his witnesses. At some point after that, he evidently changed his mind.