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

[_marg]

Dan when I wrote about not wanting your perspective, if was after I had reviewed part of your book I had read years ago. It was mainly in the introduction that I disagreed with your assumptions and reasoning, not just about the smith alone business. I also read the first 3 chapters and the part about Laban last night. You use these dreams I guess that Lucy in later years wrote about and apply them to what you think J. Smith was writing in the Book of Mormon. I can't remember in detail my dreams after an hour of waking up. And my dreams are not nearly as detailed. But you take these dreams at face value and psychoanalyze them.

If we look at the Laban story, that's where walls outside Jerusalem are mentioned. And didn't Emma Smith mention somewhere that Joseph stopped dictating to ask if Jerusalem had walls. That I think must have actually occurred. I can't see them planning to plant that scenario of him asking her that question. I think it occurred and was convenient to use as it would illustrate that he couldn't have written the Book of Mormon..and it could be quite convincing because his question actually occurred.

And then we have Lake mentioning that particular story as part of his recall for what Spalding wrote in MF. When he said that, that was before Emma's statement.

The two pieces of evidence lead me to believe Smith didn't write that particular story..because why would he be asking Emma about whether there were/are walls or not if he had?

I think we are irritating each other at this point..and I need to take a break at least for a few days if not longer.

[_GlennThigpen]

And that was my point. Secular history books get their information from the Bible.
The Bible story of the exile of those ten tribes is a religion based one. That conquest by Assyria and exile were allowed because of the wickedness of those people.

Allowed by who Glenn?

By God. According to the Bible stories, God protected the Israelites when they obeyed his word and foreign powers were not able to defeat them, but when strayed, after repeated warnings, God removed his protection.

You really ned to read up on this. I am not trying Old Testament be condescending or anything else, but there is so much that you miss and cannot understand well because you are not familiar with the background stories.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

Yes I disagree with Glenn's conclusion because I include other evidence I don't simply look at one piece of evidence to the exclusion of other evidence. I also said it's a possibility that Miller was confused on that issue because he had said he perused all the manuscripts frequently, consequently I think he might recall being amused and without associating it with a particularly storyline.

marge, I have presented multiple bits of evidence from diifferent sources concerning my views. You seem to be misreprepresenting what John Miller said about the humorous passages. He said that Solomon would read humorous passages from the manuscript to those present. Miller was not saying that he himself had read passages that he considered humorous.

As far as the Book of Mormon and humor, it is not there. You may see the story of Laban as cartoonish and humorous because you do not think that it is based upon reality. But we are not dealing with what you think is funny, but what those people would have though to be humorous. You seem to be desensitized to brutal death and dismemberment. But I would bet that those men were not, especially those who had fought in the war of 1812. The witnesses who mentioned the wars that Solomon wrote about described them "cruel and bloody."

The number of times bloody is used in the Book of Mormon, one. The numer of times it is used in Solomon's Roman story. twelve. Sounds more like the Roman story than the Book of Mormon.

John Miller said

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."

which sounds so much like this from the Roman story

They were written on a variety of Subjects. But the Roll which principally attracted my attention

Here again, John Miller is echoing a scene from the Roman story, a scene that is not in the Book of Mormon.

Several of the witnesses mention arts and sciences. That is not found in the Book of Mormon. (The word arts is used several times in the Book of Mormon in a different connotation, i.e. cunning arts, deceptions, etc. The word sciences is nor used at all in the Book of Mormon.) Arts and sciences are used together twice in the Roman story.


Martha Spalding said of the people in Solomon's story

disputes arose between the chiefs

And Solomon, in the Roman story said

Frequent bickerings, contentions & wars took place among these Chiefs,
which were often attended with pernicious consequences

The word chief is used several times in the Book of Mormon, but their is no direct statement that disputes broke out among the chiefs, especially one that would invoke the almost direct quote such as the one Martha made. Sounds like she is remembering something from the Roman story.

Then there is John Miller and the straits of Darien. There is no other witness that ever came up with that idea. Not Aaron Wright, who claimed many intimate conversations with Solomon. Aaron, and four other witnesses claimed that the story was one about the lost tribes emigrating to the Americas and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians. Not an afterthought. Not a byline, but the story. And Abner Jackson spelled it out, i.e. that they came over via the Bering straits. Miller was the only one of the witnesses known to have been living in an area where Mormon missionaries (of which Orson Pratt was one) had preached on the Book of Mormon and had broached that idea in their meetings, as reported in at least two newspapers from the area where John was living.

No. marge, I am not just looking at one piece of evidence. I am looking at all of the witnesses and their statements.

You still have not shown how Solomon could have altered his plan and gone back in time to do a history rather a romance for his own amusement as averred by Aaron Wright when Oliver Smith said that Solomon was writing a story with the names Nephi and Lehi in it when he first came to the area.

Glenn

[_marg]

Glenn: And that was my point. Secular history books get their information from the Bible. The Bible story of the exile of those ten tribes is a religion based one. That conquest by Assyria and exile were allowed because of the wickedness of those people.

marg: Allowed by who Glenn?

Glenn: By God. According to the Bible stories, God protected the Israelites when they obeyed his word and foreign powers were not able to defeat them, but when strayed, after repeated warnings, God removed his protection.

You really ned to read up on this. I am not trying Old Testament be condescending or anything else, but there is so much that you miss and cannot understand well because you are not familiar with the background stories.

------------------------------------

Response: Glenn the part where you say 'God allowed the conquest because of the wickedness of those people..that part is myth. The part in which Assyria invaded and exiled Israelites from the N. Israel in 720 B.C. that part is considered history. It is dependent upon the evidence. That evidence is the Hebrew Bible but as well the reason why historians consider portions of the Hebrew Bible as likely history is because archeological evidence and evidence from neighbouring groups cross check and generally are consistent with one another.

The lost tribes is a term used to describe the tribes exiled from the N.Kingdom of Israel in 720 B.C. that part is considered history..they are lost to history after 720 B.C. . The Esdras prophecy concerning the Lost tribes, written around 100 A.D. ...that is considered myth.

[_GlennThigpen]

Response: Glenn the part where you say 'God allowed the conquest because of the wickedness of those people..that part is myth. The part in which Assyria invaded and exiled Israelites from the N. Israel in 720 B.C. that part is considered history. It is dependent upon the evidence. That evidence is the Hebrew Bible but as well the reason why historians consider portions of the Hebrew Bible as likely history is because archeological evidence and evidence from neighbouring groups cross check and generally are consistent with one another.

The lost tribes is a term used to describe the tribes exiled from the N.Kingdom of Israel in 720 B.C. that part is considered history..they are lost to history after 720 B.C. . The Esdras prophecy concerning the Lost tribes, written around 100 A.D. ...that is considered myth.

marge, most secular historians dismiss the lost tribes as a myth, They do not use the Bible as a basis for history of anything because there is a dearth of external evidence supporting the events described in the Bible, such as the Israelite sojourn in Egypt and the Exodus. The same goes for the Assyrian exile of the lost tribes. There is not enoug archeological evidence nor mention in Assyrian archives to validate that story.

Glenn

[_marg]

marge, most secular historians dismiss the lost tribes as a myth, They do not use the Bible as a basis for history of anything because there is a dearth of external evidence supporting the events described in the Bible, such as the Israelite sojourn in Egypt and the Exodus. The same goes for the Assyrian exile of the lost tribes. There is not enoug archeological evidence nor mention in Assyrian archives to validate that story.

There is the lost tribes myth..as per Esdras and whoever else wants to speculate on what happened to the exiled Israelites in 721 B.C. And then there is the history of the Israelite tribes in the north who after being exiled, no more history is known and it is assumed they assimilated into the population they were exiled to.

There is good reason to accept the biblical account that Assyria attacked Northern Israel and deported the population. Whether or not there is actual written evidence of this particular event there is evidence of attacks by the Assyrians of Judah written by the Assyrians in this time period. The tribes in the North must have been exiled, their historical account ended from that point forward. There is little reason to think this event as per the Bible is propaganda written by the South Israelites or Judeans (I'm not sure what they are called).

That event of Assyrians attacking and deporting the Northern tribes in 721 B.C.is considered to have occurred by historians. And the term we use for those tribes is "lost tribes" irrespective of the myth which has grown up about them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_and_Sennacherib_Prisms


And by the way the Bible is used as a source for history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah

The sources for the history of ancient Israel and Judah can be broadly divided into the biblical narrative (essentially the Hebrew Bible, but also Deuterocanonical and non-biblical works for the later period) and the archaeological record. The latter can again be divided between epigraphy (written inscriptions, both from Israel and other lands including Mesopotamia and Egypt) and the material record (everything else).

The Hebrew Bible contains "myths, legends and folktales, sagas, heroic epics, oral traditions, annals, biographies, narrative histories, novellae, belles lettres, proverbs and wisdom-sayings, poetry (including erotic poems ...), prophecy, apocalyptic, and much more ... the whole finally woven into a composite, highly complex literary fabric sometime in the Hellenistic era."[1] Although Jewish tradition ascribes the biblical books to times and authors contemporaneous with events, they were in fact written in many cases considerably after the times they describe and by authors with a clear religious and nationalist agenda, and it is therefore critical to treat them with circumspection.[2]

On the other hand, "were we entirely dependent on the archaeological evidence narrowly defined, we would not even know that ancient Israel existed"; for this reason archaeology must be interpreted in the light of the Old Testament and the epigraphic evidence.[3]

As well :

There is a general consensus among scholars that the first formative event in the emergence of the distinctive religion described in the Bible was triggered by the destruction of Israel by Assyria in c.722 BCE. Refugees came south to Judah, bringing with them laws and a Prophetic tradition that Yahweh was the only god who should be served. These beliefs were adopted by the "people of the land", meaning the landed families who provided the administrative class of the kingdom, and in 640 BCE these circles were decisive in placing on the throne the eight-year-old Josiah. Judah at this time was a vassal of Assyria, but Assyrian power collapsed in the 630s, and in around 622 Josiah and the Deuteronomists, as the circle around him are called by modern scholars, launched a bid for independence expressed as loyalty to "Yahweh alone" and the law-code in the book of Deuteronomy, written in the form of a treaty between Judah and Yahweh to replace the vassal-treaty with Assyria.[69]

[_GlennThigpen]

On the other hand, "were we entirely dependent on the archaeological evidence narrowly defined, we would not even know that ancient Israel existed"; for this reason archaeology must be interpreted in the light of the Old Testament and the epigraphic evidence.[3]

I think that is the point I made. All secular history about the lost tribes is based upon the Biblical accounts, which have religious connotations.

Glenn

[_marg]

On the other hand, "were we entirely dependent on the archaeological evidence narrowly defined, we would not even know that ancient Israel existed"; for this reason archaeology must be interpreted in the light of the Old Testament and the epigraphic evidence.[3]

I think that is the point I made. All secular history about the lost tribes is based upon the Biblical accounts, which have religious connotations.

I understand the point you are trying to make, that anytime anyone uses the term "lost tribe" it refers to the myth per
Esdras. But as I said to you the history book I have, used the term, and simply said that these Northern Tribes have subsequently been referred to as "10 lost tribes". The book didn't get into any myth. The historical account accepted is that 10 tribes of Northern Israel were exiled by Assyrians in 721 B.C. My history book says they assimilated after being exiled. I understand a myth has grown about the lost ten tribes, but one can still refer to those exiled people at that particular time for that particular event as "10 lost tribes" without accepting the later myths which evolved.

[_GlennThigpen]

I understand the point you are trying to make, that anytime anyone uses the term "lost tribe" it refers to the myth per
Esdras. But as I said to you the history book I have, used the term, and simply said that these Northern Tribes have subsequently been referred to as "10 lost tribes". The book didn't get into any myth. The historical account accepted is that 10 tribes of Northern Israel were exiled by Assyrians in 721 B.C. My history book says they assimilated after being exiled. I understand a myth has grown about the lost ten tribes, but one can still refer to those exiled people at that particular time for that particular event as "10 lost tribes" without accepting the later myths which evolved.

I don't disagree with that. One can read the whole Bible and accept that some of the events happened without accepting the legends that are incorporated into the text itself. However, the five witnesses that spoke of the lost tribes were speaking of the legends that have grown out of the Biblical story.

However, the point is not whether one accepts as true those myths, but what the witnesses were talking about and meant by their references to the lost tribes.

And my point in the original post, I would like to see how those writers inject a lost tribes theme into their story, if they do so at all, without attending to the myths and legends.

Glenn

[_marg]

I don't disagree with that. One can read the whole Bible and accept that some of the events happened without accepting the legends that are incorporated into the text itself. However, the five witnesses that spoke of the lost tribes were speaking of the legends that have grown out of the Biblical story.

However, the point is not whether one accepts as true those myths, but what the witnesses were talking about and meant by their references to the lost tribes.

And my point in the original post, I would like to see how those writers inject a lost tribes theme into their story, if they do so at all, without attending to the myths and legends.

Well according to the myth, the tribes were sent North and then they scattered. But Spalding If I recall correctly had a keen interest in history, studied the Bible as well, did not accept the Bible as literally true. I believe his wife wasn't all that religious, I believe Aron Wright wasn't all that religious. Just as today we have people who go to church or give religion respect, it doesn't mean that buy into it all. People were skeptics back then, there is no reason to assume everyone had to or did buy into every myth related to the Bible.

So the argument you have made is that Spalding wouldn't have had any lost tribe go south to Jerusalem and as well he would have had them all travel as one large group at least initially and migrate as a large group to a distant land..per Esdras written in around 100 A.D..

But Spalding was writing an evolving story, he didn't buy into biblical myths and he had a keen interest in history. The Conneaut witnesses were exposed to his earliest version. So if spalding didn't accept the myth and at that time there were likely historical accounts just as today, that the Israelites assimilated after being exiled ...his story in order to tap into the imaginations of people wondering what happened to the exiled tribes might have been to take one or a few characters with an ancestry to a lost tribe who also went south to Jerusalem when exiled. The blood line would therefore still be from the lost tribe group exiled. It would not be the myth or an explanation where all the lost tribes went, but rather it would be an explanation that the mound builders were descendants from that blood line.

And according to the witnesses that would be a lost tribe story, according to Spalding that would be a lost tribe story. This would explain why John Spalding was confused, if he was familiar the lost tribe myth, he might have forgetten how Spalding explained it as a lost tribe story if the characters left Jerusalem..he might have appreciated that sounded odd to describe it as a lost tribe story when it was only a few characters who left Jerusalem. And so he phrased it as the story originating with lost tribes or jews.

And then Martha said a few lost tribes, so there might have been other characters Spalding had with ancestry to another tribe. But your argument is Martha would have known the lost tribes myth, so if she did why would her description of Splading's story be inconsistent with the myth and yet she said he wrote too show Am. Indians were descended from lost tribes. It boils down to this Glenn, that just because someone used the term "lost tribes" does not mean they are using the term to describe the myth. They can very well be using the term to describe the exiled Israelite story in the Bible by the Assyrians of 721 B.C. Remember, Spalding is educated and interested in this history. There is no reason to assume he accepted the myth, and more reason to assume he didn't.

So if his story is about one person or a few people with ancestry to those those exiled lost tribes...then it is still a lost tribe story. And Spalding if that was the case, would have likely explained to Martha and others that the characters was descendants to the lost tribes. He could have even explained to those very familiar with the myth, that historically there is no reason to assume the tribes didn't assimilate but that he was carrying on the lost tribe story by his version which was the moundbuilders were descendants by blood to ancestry from the exiled tribes in 721 B.C.

Later witnesses might have been exposed to a different version, Spalding may have continued to take it back further in time, and elaborated more on a version which involved more of the myth. He may have had the tribes travel east after 720 B.C. and fight in China before a few survivors Lehi and others migrate to America. That way he would deal with the rest of the lost tribes that he hadn't dealt with in earlier versions.

So I don't see a problem at all, with the conneaut witnesses saying Spalding's story was to explain the ancestry of moundbuilders came from lost tribes.

If the writer was someone like Rigdon, extremely religious, who viewed the Bible literally, then no that person wouldn't change the myth..and someone such as yourself who buys into the myth has a hard time understanding that the myth could be presented differently, but someone like Spalding would certainly have been capable of changing it..and using just the secular history of the tribes as the basis..to write his story..while also tapping into people's imaginations generated by the lost tribe myth popularity..and their wonderment of what happened to them, but also the wonderment of who the moundbuilders were as well as Am. Indians.