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

[_MCB]

What has that go to do with Hurlbut being intimidated by the LDS? We are getting way off track here.

Glenn

Perhaps. I've been reading too much Deming, maybe.
:) Grins. We will get these statements covered, despite our biases.

[_Jersey Girl]

The RLDS and LDS maintain that the "Manuscript Story - Conneaut Creek" is the "Manuscript Found" and published it as such.

Why?

Because there is so very little evidence that Solomon ever wrote another story similar to the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

Are you saying that because there is so very little evidence that Solomon Spalding ever wrote another story similar to the Book of Mormon, that the RLDS and LDS elected to give the manuscript a second title, "Manuscript Found", which is the title of the very manuscript testified to by the Conneaut witnesses and thereby, confirming the testimonies of the Conneaut witnesses?

Why would either the RLDS or LDS choose to do anything that supports the Spalding/Rigdon theory with regards to Book of Mormon authorship?

[Guest]

Sorry to harp on this MCB..I think I'm finally reaching the point of understanding this lost tribe business..so I should be through with this soon. You can always hope :)

Post reference: link

How is it the Book of Mormon can have Lehi leaving Jerusalem and the Lamanites be remnants of the House of Israel which are the lost tribes, but Spalding can't have his characters leave Jerusalem and be remnants of the House of Israel/lost tribes?

marge, the House of Israel includes all of the tribes which are the descendants of the sons of Jacob who was renamed Israel by the Lord. There are actually thirteen because Joseph was given a double inheritance portion through his sons Manasseh and Ephraim, but there is no tribe actually named Joseph.
So a remant of the House of Israel could be from any of the tribes, including Judah and Benjamin which were the southern tribes.

But the Lamanites are not descended from just any tribe, in particular they are according to the Book of Mormon descendants from the tribe of Manasseh..a lost tribe. So if spalding did the same, it would be understandable why the Conneaut witnesses would mention his story was to show the Indians were descendants of the lost tribes. I know you and Dan think the witnesses should have said "tribe" as opposed to "tribes". But lost tribes is a label..it represents a unit. If one is not specific as to a particular lost tribe its is understandable to use the name "lost tribes" without intending to refer to all all the lost tribes.


Just as the Book of Mormon is not about where all the lost tribes went to, nor even where all the Manasseh tribe went to, so too, based on the statements of the Conneaut witnesses Spalding’s book was not about where all the lost tribes went to or where the lost ancestral tribe related to his characters went. Just as the Book of Mormon if we take out the religious sections out focuses on who are the ancestors of the Lamanites are so too did Spalding's book focus according to the Conneaut witnesses on who the ancestors were of the Am. Indian..and in both cases the blood line traces to a lost tribe..still lost at the time the Book of Mormon is published or when Spalding was hoping to get his published.


Just as the Book of Mormon has a descendant of the tribe Manasseh living in Jerusalem , so too could Spalding. Just as the Book of Mormon had lost tribes living elsewhere, so too could Spalding. The Lamanites per Book of Mormon aren't meant to be representative of all the descendants living of the Manasseh tribe so too Spalding’s surviving characters wouldn’t have to be representative of all descendants living of the tribe in his story. And yet despite the story not being about where all a certain tribe went to or all the lost tribes went to, the story would none the less be about Am. Indians being descendant of a lost tribe, just as the witnesses described.

3 or 4 of the witnesses talk about the purpose of Spalding’s book was to show Am. Indians are descendants of the lost tribes. That is not the same thing as saying the book was about lost tribes or the lost tribe myth. John Spalding doesn’t appear to know the difference between Jews and lost tribes so he’s obviously not very familiar with the lost tribe myth. His wife mentions Indians being descendants of some of the lost tribes..not all the lost tribes. Lake said ..descendants of the lost tribes. The only one who implies the book is about the lost tribes..as opposed to it being about Am. Indians was Aron Wright who said “read to me a history he was writing, of the lost tribes of Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America”. Given that Aron Wright is the only one implying the story was about lost tribes..I suspect he worded his statement as he did ..as a function of poor knowledge of the myth.

[Guest]

viewtopic.php?p=442285#p442285]link[/url]

The witnesses say the Indians are descendants of the “lost tribes” according to Spalding’s MS. This isn’t fulfilled by Lehi’s being of the tribe of Joseph. We don’t know that his living in Jerusalem was the result of his ancestors being dispersed from the northern kingdom at the time of the Assyrian captivity. These are the facts. The conflict between the Book of Mormon and the witnesses’ statements is real. Your attempt to overcome this problem with speculation and convoluted logic isn’t working. I seriously doubt that other Spalding advocates support you on this.

Spalding could have done the same thing as the Book of Mormon, and had a character descended from the tribe of Manasseh a lost tribe, living in Jerusalem in 600 B.C. ..migrate to America and the survivors be ancestors of Am Ind. I explain this above in my post to Glenn ..”lost tribes” is a name representing a group/unit, dispersed out of an area at a point in time. And any one or any group in the world who claims affiliation via blood line can claim to be from the “lost tribes”. It wouldn’t mean by saying in the plural “lost tribes” that the person or group affiliated by blood to the “ lost tribes” is claiming to be affiliated to every one of the 10 lost tribes.

And as far as your comment “We don’t know that his (Lehi) living in Jerusalem was the result of his ancestors being dispersed from the northern kingdom at the time of the Assyrian captivity” well heck Dan we are only dealing with fictional stories and maybe the witnesses didn’t know either but assumed it. You are too technical with what the witnesses are supposed to know with regards to Spalding’s characters as far as this lost tribe myth goes. For most people not highly familiar with the details of the myth “being descended” would simply mean “related to” and it wouldn’t be a critical factor to consider in listening to a story whether the lineage involved directly related to the dispersed group or indirectly related. And I don't know what Spalding wrote but maybe he set it up that a few people got away from that dispersed group headed north and they went south. I don't see that as something highly unlikely in a storyline that a few could escape the enemy.

Their description and use of “lost tribes” is appropriate without it having to mean they are referring to all the lost tribes. Here’s an analogy:

“September Six” is the name which represents 6 people excommunicated from the Church in Sept 1993. “Lost tribes” is the name which represents the 10 lost tribes dispersed in 720 B.C. out of Northern Israel.

Let’s say for illustrative purposes we were interested in following the genetic blood line of the Sept Six as a whole. And let’s say a Sept Six individual has 2children ..Bob & Jim..

So American Indians are descendants genetically of the “lost tribes”.

Bob & Jim are descendants of the excommunicated “Sept Six”.

That doesn’t mean Am. Indians are descendants of all the10 lost tribes genetically even though the name “lost tribes” is used , just as it doesn’t mean Bob & Jim are descendants of every one of those individuals in the named group, the "Sept Six".

As far as Spalding not following the myth per Esdras, well Esdras was written in the first century A.D. and Spalding not being a literal Bible believer would appreciate it was mere speculation. He could easily add to it. As I pointed out previously in another post, myths are changed and people buy into them ..Christians changed Hebrew myths, Mormons changed Christian myths. Mormons still expect to be considered Christians, because they have Jesus Christ in their storyline. Spalding's story would still be about "lost tribes" because he has a lost tribe ancestor to Indians in his storyline..and that's all that the Conneaut witnesses need to know to consider Spalding's story was to show Am Ind..descendants of the lost tribes.

And one more comment..you say and Glenn does as well that Spalding wouldn't have changed the myth that was commonly accepted such as by Ethan Smith , among others..that Am Indians were descendants of the dispersed lost tribes from the 720. B.C. group out of Northern Israel...because people wouldn't accept it. And yet, the Book of Mormon changed that myth. The Book of Mormon writers don't have Am. Ind being descendants of that dispersed 720 B.C. group, which Ethan Smith and others speculated they were. The ancestors of Am. Ind per the Book of Mormon are only descendants of a family which might or might not be descended from the dispersed 720 lost tribe group. And yet, despite the Book of Mormon not being consistent with the Jewish-Am Indian theory commonly accepted in the 1800's ..people still bought into it.

You say, Dan that's because it was presented as scripture..but as I've pointed out to you Spalding's could sell as a believable story, just as the Book of Mormon did, because it's presented as a story written by ancient people of the time.

[_GlennThigpen]

The RLDS and LDS maintain that the "Manuscript Story - Conneaut Creek" is the "Manuscript Found" and published it as such.

Why?

Because there is so very little evidence that Solomon ever wrote another story similar to the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

Are you saying that because there is so very little evidence that Solomon Spalding ever wrote another story similar to the Book of Mormon, that the RLDS and LDS elected to give the manuscript a second title, "Manuscript Found", which is the title of the very manuscript testified to by the Conneaut witnesses and thereby, confirming the testimonies of the Conneaut witnesses?

Why would either the RLDS or LDS choose to do anything that supports the Spalding/Rigdon theory with regards to Book of Mormon authorship?

We don't know who gave the manuscript the title "Manuscript Story, Conneaut Creek". It was written in pencil on the wrapper, not on the manuscript itself. The handwriting does not appear to be that of Solomon. He does not appear to have titled his manuscript himself.
It is the only such manuscript ever found known to be authored by Solomon and the LDS and RLDS were simply giving it the name that the witnesses had noted that Solomon gave it.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

3 or 4 of the witnesses talk about the purpose of Spalding’s book was to show Am. Indians are descendants of the lost tribes. That is not the same thing as saying the book was about lost tribes or the lost tribe myth. John Spalding doesn’t appear to know the difference between Jews and lost tribes so he’s obviously not very familiar with the lost tribe myth. His wife mentions Indians being descendants of some of the lost tribes..not all the lost tribes. Lake said ..descendants of the lost tribes. The only one who implies the book is about the lost tribes..as opposed to it being about Am. Indians was Aron Wright who said “read to me a history he was writing, of the lost tribes of Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America”. Given that Aron Wright is the only one implying the story was about lost tribes..I suspect he worded his statement as he did ..as a function of poor knowledge of the myth.

marge, I am going to quote again from another witness, Abner Jackson:

A note in Morse's Geography suggested it as a possibility that our Indians were descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. Said Morse, they might have wandered through Asia up to Behring's Strait, and across the Strait to this continent. Besides there were habits and ceremonies among them that resembled some habits and ceremonies among the Israelites of that day. Then the old fortifications and earth mounds, containing so many kinds of relics and human bones, and some of them so large, altogether convinced him that they were a larger race and more enlightened and civilized than are found among the Indians among us at this day. These facts and reflections prompted him to write his Romance, purporting to be a history of the lost tribes of Israel.

The witnesses were not looking at one tribe, they were looking at the legend as they understood it from the literature of their times. That is what they are saying about Solomon's story. You cannot impose your ideas on their statements, ideas for which you produce no evidence.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

I added this as an edit to a previous post and it seems to already have been bypassed by other posts when I did so. But I think the following deserves a bit of follow up.


In the Oberlin manuscript, Solomon is describing the fictional documents he unearthed and fictionally translated to become the "Manuscript Found".
"They were written on a variety of Subjects. But the Roll which principally attracted my attention, "

And this from John Miller's statement"
"He had written two or three books or pamphlets on different subjects; but that which more particularly drew my attention, was one which he called the "Manuscript Found."

While I was perusing Solomon's story, that statement seemed familiar to me, I seemed to remember one of the witnesses with a similar statement. And looking back through the list, sure enough, it was in John Miller's statement.

So, here we have John Miller, who evidently was contacted via a letter, responding to Hurlbut from Pennsylvania saying that yes, he actually stayed with Spalding for a while, and read some of his writings. But he uses a phrase so like a phrase from the Oberlin manuscript as to raise the very real possibility that Miller had indeed been reading from Solomon's manuscript, which he said Solomon called the "Manuscript Found", but rather than being the Book of Mormon type story, it was the Oberlin manuscript.

I have mentioned in a previous post that Miller was the only one of the Conneaut witnesses to mention the Straits of Darien as the place where Solomon had landed his party. I also noted that this was not long after a local newspaper had written, or actually republished a story that some "Mormonites" coming through the area had preached on the Book of Mormon and the straits of Darien was one of the items that were reported on.

While it is possible that Solomon made this explanation to John only while all the others present held their hands over their ears, it is likely that John was remembering the straits of Darien from the newspaper article.

Glenn

[Guest]

Post reference: link

Marg: When they (Conneaut witnesses)say they clearly remember aspects such as certain names, certain passages, certain phrasing which was brought back to memory by the Book of Mormon…that is not something attributable to false memory. False memory occurs when source memory is weak.

Dan: “No. false memory happens when memory is vague, whether a source is strong or weak. False memory can happen to an entire memory or just part of a memory. Nevertheless, you are assuming that the witnesses were right about the names--therefore their source memories were strong and could not have been false. It’s circular. It could be equally argued that they were wrong about the names, and therefore their source memories were weak, as witnessed by their being wrong about a major theme.”

Dan the way the brain works is that information gets stored in different areas of the brain. Factual knowledge called semantic memory might be in one area, episodic memory of an event might include, sounds, smell, sight, touch, temperature, pain etc and those might be encoded in different areas. So when recalling an episodic memory people bring to recall the linked various encoded inputs to the event. The various associations help differentiate in memory one event from another. When there is no source memory..as in Loftus’s “lost in the mall” study..people are susceptible to faulty memory. The 25 % of that study who said they recalled being lost in the mall when they were 5..had no source memory other than they learned of this episodic event via the study and then they imagined the event. And if you asked these people if they recalled this event before the study, they would be aware that they had no memory previous to the study of that event. The memory surfaced as a result of the study. They did not link their memory to associated memories of sight, sounds, smells, what was said, who was there etc in order to recall this memory.

But with the witnesses their memories of Spalding’s manuscript didn’t arise from Hurlbut’s questioning nor from the Book of Mormon, they had memories of Spalding’s work previous to Hurlbut’s arrival and their reading the Book of Mormon. So unlike the Loftus group they have source memories to generate recall. And in these situations, people do appreciate when they clearly remember. In Scafter’s book he refers to this phenomenon as “remembering” versus “knowing”. In remembering the associations tied to the memory are clear. In “knowing” there is a sense of familiarity..an appreciation of remembering something, but some uncertainty involved.

Given that the witnesses would have had good source memories because of numerous times as well as different types of memories being encoded ..that opportunity to well encode the memories would enable them to appreciate if their recall was well remembered or vaguely remembered. They would know the difference between vaguely remembering due to a retrieval cue versus simply having some familiarity or just knowing they have some memories.

So I’m not assuming as you say that the witnesses were right about their recall of names therefore their source memories were strong. Rather the other way around, that given the description of discussions and listening to Spalding read they would have developed source memories such that they wouldn’t be confusing those memories with their reading of the the Book of Mormon or listening to Hurlbut’s questioning.

They linked information in the Book of Mormon to their various episodic memories associated when encoding in memory Spalding’s work..and appreciated without a doubt they had clear recall of some items, phrasing “and it came to pass”, certain names. This is a concept appreciated in the memory science field..people do know when they have clear memory versus vague memory as long as they are recalling a memory with source memories they can link it to.

As an example, let’s say someone asks you what you did on a particular day..well if there is no way to differentiate the days, you wouldn’t have a good source memory. If however they ask you about a day and it happens to be when you went on a vacation, you might be able to link various encoded memories to that day’s event. You might recall clearly getting up early in the morning, rushing, perhaps taking a taxi, being with your wife and eating breakfast at the airport etc. Linking to the source memories of an episodic event enables you to know if you are merely vaguely recalling or whether you clearly remember. Because of the witnesses repeated exposure over time in discussions, in reading, in listening to Spalding their source memory would not be a quick one time event easily confusable with another event. Their memories would have developed over time, with numerous associations helping to encode it. It is understandable why they would have clear recall with a memory retrieval cue.

As far as confusing MSCC with MF…what they say they clearly remember, is not contained in MSCC.

And by the way, for the record, I don't think they were wrong about that major theme.

[_GlennThigpen]

Given that the witnesses would have had good source memories because of numerous times as well as different types of memories being encoded ..that opportunity to well encode the memories would enable them to appreciate if their recall was well remembered or vaguely remembered. They would know the difference between vaguely remembering due to a retrieval cue versus simply having some familiarity or just knowing they have some memories.

It is not a given that the witnesses would have good source memories of the Spalding story. The repetition of which you speak is not evident in but a few cases, John Miller being one of them. And John has his own issues which I brought up in another post.

As far as confusing MSCC with MF…what they say they clearly remember, is not contained in MSCC.

On that point, you are a bit inaccurate. Check out Matthew Roper's little treatise on the subject and look at the similarities that he lists between some of the witnesses statements and material from the Oberlin Manuscript. Matt has a chart for easy cross checking.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=2&id=584

Glenn

[_marg]

The witnesses were not looking at one tribe, they were looking at the legend as they understood it from the literature of their times. That is what they are saying about Solomon's story. You cannot impose your ideas on their statements, ideas for which you produce no evidence.

Glenn the witnesses were recalling Spalding's story.

As you pointed out what was commonly appreciated and accepted by many was Ethan Smith's theory that American Indians were descendants of the Lost tribes which had dispersed out of N. Israel in 720 B.C.

And yet the Book of Mormon is not consistent with that theory..correct? But it's okay for the Book of Mormon to not be consistent..that is for the Book of Mormon to have Am. Indians descendant of a family (as opposed to being consistent with Ethan Smith's view of Am.Indians descendant of all the lost tribes or even one entire specific lost tribe) and okay for the Book of Mormon to link Am Ind to an ancestor who may or may not be a direct blood line down from the dispersed 720 B.C.lost tribe group.

That's interesting that's it's okay according to you that the Book of Mormon was inconsistent with the popular Jewish Am. Indian theory of the day, but not okay for Spalding to be.

And you expect the witnesses to not only appreciate Ethan Smith's Jewish-Am Indian theory and to reject spalding's story if it differed, but to be fully knowledgeable about the lost tribe myth per Esdras and to point out in their statements that although Spalding's main character was related blood wise to the lost tribes that relationship was not part of the lost tribe myth per Esdras. You crucify them for recalling Spalding's writings being about showing Am Ind being descendants of the lost tribes..all because it is not consistent with popular theories of the day (which the Book of Mormon isn't either) and not consistent with a prophecy/speculation written in the first century A.D. of descendants of the lost tribes being from the dispersed group migrating to far lands.

The fact is Glenn their statement is not about the lost tribe myth, it's about Spalding's story. And it's quite possible that Spalding if he wanted to have some consistency with the lost tribe myth simply presented Lehi as being a descendant of those who escaped the deportment in 720 B.C. and instead of going where the rest of those 10 tribes went, they went to Jerusalem. That's all it would take for the witnesses to accurately recall Spalding's story being about Am. Indians descendants of the lost tribes..with "lost tribes" being the term or name used for the general storyline associated with that group of people.