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

[_GlennThigpen]

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.

Number one, although Solomon may have lost his religion sometime in his life, as evidenced by the letter or note found with the Oberlin manuscript, that same note stated that he did not care to publish his views but was content to let those who believed in the Bible continue in their delusions.
There is no witness evidence to support a conclusion that Aaron Wright or Matilda Spalding Davison was not religious.

The witnesses set the bounds and expectations for a supposed lost tribes tale. Those expectations are summed up in Abner Jackson's statement. I have quoted it before, but to save you the trouble of having to go back and look it up, I will repeat the quotation:

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 fact that there is inconsistencies between the statements about the lost tribes is not surprising, owing to the twenty years or so that had elapsed since they had those discussions with Solomon. But the fact that there is no lost tribes story in the Book of Mormon when it is supposed to read almost identical to Solomon's story pretty much puts the kibosh on Solomon having written a lost tribes story that would fit the descriptions that the witnesses gave. And they are the ones that define what it was.

Glenn

[_marg]

Number one, although Solomon may have lost his religion sometime in his life, as evidenced by the letter or note found with the Oberlin manuscript, that same note stated that he did not care to publish his views but was content to let those who believed in the Bible continue in their delusions.

I don't think the myth in Esdras is considered terribly biblical. And I don't think Spalding would have thought it either. And christianity was not the least bit dependant on the lost tribe myth. So by writing a fictional secular account of the moundbuilders being descendant from lost tribe blood line, he's not destroying anyone's faith in Christianity.

There is no witness evidence to support a conclusion that Aaron Wright or Matilda Spalding Davison was not religious.

I read somewhere that she was likely instrumental in his changed views on religion. I don't feel like searching for it, as it's not important. As for Aron Wright it's in his obituary.."he was not a professed follower of Christ". My point anyhow Glenn was that not everyone was steeped in religious belief back then.

The witnesses set the bounds and expectations for a supposed lost tribes tale. Those expectations are summed up in Abner Jackson's statement. I have quoted it before, but to save you the trouble of having to go back and look it up, I will repeat the quotation: "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."

On the one hand Glenn you are arguing that the conneaut witnesses must be mistaken that Spalding wrote anything about ancestry to the lost tribes but then you quote Abner Jackson yet another witness who says Spalding wrote about the 10 lost tribes. Of course the problem is his version of Spalding's story doesn't match the witnesses who describe not a story of the exiled lost tribes but a story of a descendant over a 100 years later living in Jerusalem and his progeny.

So Abner is consistent in that he says Spalding was interested in lost tribes and that his story was to explain the moundbuilders were descendants.

Abner apparently was quite familiar with the Morse geography note, but he doesn't mention anything about the Book of Mormon helping him recall Spalding's story. What he seems to clearly remember is the note in Morse's geography. The impression I have Glenn is he is filling in his recall of Spalding's story which could be hazy in parts and matching it up to Morse's geography and describing Spalding's story as the lost tribes in 720 b.c. that were exiled. He says: "He(spalding) begins with their departure from Palestine . . . their craft for passing over the Straits . . . landing . . . divisions and subdivisions . . . civilization . . . quarrelled . . . a terrible battle . . . Spaulding's romance professed to find the record . . . in one of these mounds". So there is a lot of similarity with what the other witnesses describe except he says Spalding wrote about the quarelling of all the tribes from 720 b.c...I suspect he's having difficulty recalling how Spalding wrote about moundbuilder's being descendant of lost tribes.he knows lost tribes were involved, and there were lots of battles..but he mixes it up with with Morse geography and perhaps current lost tribe theories of the day he's familiar with. Remember he's one person and he says no where that he clearly recalls anything in spalding's story, no particular unique detail is brought back to memory, nor does he describe when or how he heard Spalding's story.

The fact that there is inconsistencies between the statements about the lost tribes is not surprising, owing to the twenty years or so that had elapsed since they had those discussions with Solomon. But the fact that there is no lost tribes story in the Book of Mormon when it is supposed to read almost identical to Solomon's story pretty much puts the kibosh on Solomon having written a lost tribes story that would fit the descriptions that the witnesses gave. And they are the ones that define what it was.

[/quote]

You keep going on about this lost tribe myth as if it's an Achilles heal. As I pointed out to you before... Spalding may have written a story not about the myth but about a few people with lost tribe ancestry. And that story may have been the one presented to R. Patterson. That story may have been the one Rigdon got a hold of, but then Spalding with either his working copy or a returned copy from the printer continued to add to it after Pittsburg and extended the story back in time. That's a possibility which would explain Amity witnesses describing a lost tribe story further back in time to 720 B.C in which those tribes head east to china and fight amongst themselves with a few survivors who then went to America.

You keep saying the Book of Mormon isn't a lost tribe story...but the witnesses other than Aron (who it's known he wasn't religious) didn't describe it as a lost tribe story but rather as an explanation that the moundbuilders were descendants from an exiled person of the lost tribes who went to Jerusalem. That's not a lost tribe story Glenn. It simply is not consistent with the myth..but it is consistent with historical accounts which assume not only that the tribes went north but that some went south after being exiled. And this Spalding storyline is consistent with the Book of Mormon. And just because there are remarks within the Book of Mormon that the lost tribes live somewhere..those could easily have been added to Spalding's story, in fact someone who was religious and wanted the story to agree with the myth would add that.

[_GlennThigpen]

I don't think the myth in Esdras is considered terribly biblical. And I don't think Spalding would have thought it either. And christianity was not the least bit dependant on the lost tribe myth. So by writing a fictional secular account of the moundbuilders being descendant from lost tribe blood line, he's not destroying anyone's faith in Christianity.

marg, Esdras is not considered Biblical today by hardly anyone except Catholics, who view the whole of the apocrypha as biblical. But the apocrypha was in most Bibles of the time and was viewed by many as Biblical, hence the interest in the legend of the lost tribes especially as it related to the theories as to the possibility of a migration to the Americas and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians. Again, you are trying to read the mind of Solomon Spalding rather than looking at the statements by the witnesses and what they believed. Martha Spalding said

He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question.

That statement is pretty clear. But there is no lost tribes story in the Book of Mormon.

There is no witness evidence to support a conclusion that Aaron Wright or Matilda Spalding Davison was not religious.

I read somewhere that she was likely instrumental in his changed views on religion. I don't feel like searching for it, as it's not important. As for Aron Wright it's in his obituary.."he was not a professed follower of Christ". My point anyhow Glenn was that not everyone was steeped in religious belief back then.

What is important is what the witnesses would have understood and meant by a lost tribes story.

The witnesses set the bounds and expectations for a supposed lost tribes tale. Those expectations are summed up in Abner Jackson's statement. I have quoted it before, but to save you the trouble of having to go back and look it up, I will repeat the quotation: "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."

On the one hand Glenn you are arguing that the conneaut witnesses must be mistaken that Spalding wrote anything about ancestry to the lost tribes but then you quote Abner Jackson yet another witness who says Spalding wrote about the 10 lost tribes. Of course the problem is his version of Spalding's story doesn't match the witnesses who describe not a story of the exiled lost tribes but a story of a descendant over a 100 years later living in Jerusalem and his progeny.

So Abner is consistent in that he says Spalding was interested in lost tribes and that his story was to explain the moundbuilders were descendants.

Abner apparently was quite familiar with the Morse geography note, but he doesn't mention anything about the Book of Mormon helping him recall Spalding's story. What he seems to clearly remember is the note in Morse's geography. The impression I have Glenn is he is filling in his recall of Spalding's story which could be hazy in parts and matching it up to Morse's geography and describing Spalding's story as the lost tribes in 720 b.c. that were exiled. He says: "He(spalding) begins with their departure from Palestine . . . their craft for passing over the Straits . . . landing . . . divisions and subdivisions . . . civilization . . . quarrelled . . . a terrible battle . . . Spalding's romance professed to find the record . . . in one of these mounds". So there is a lot of similarity with what the other witnesses describe except he says Spalding wrote about the quarelling of all the tribes from 720 b.c...I suspect he's having difficulty recalling how Spalding wrote about moundbuilder's being descendant of lost tribes.he knows lost tribes were involved, and there were lots of battles..but he mixes it up with with Morse geography and perhaps current lost tribe theories of the day he's familiar with. Remember he's one person and he says no where that he clearly recalls anything in spalding's story, no particular unique detail is brought back to memory, nor does he describe when or how he heard Spalding's story.

He does tell how and when he heard Spalding's story.

This romance, Mr. Spaulding brought with him on a visit to my father, a short time before he moved from Conneaut to Pittsburgh. At that time I was confined to the house with a lame knee, and so I was in company with them and heard the conversation that passed between them.

Abner clearly tied the lost tribes to Solomon's story. And I actually agree with you that Abner was probably recalling something from Morse's geography coupled with discussions about the lost tribes rather than anything actually from the manuscript. As were the rest of the witnesses that recalled something about Solomon's story.

The fact that there is inconsistencies between the statements about the lost tribes is not surprising, owing to the twenty years or so that had elapsed since they had those discussions with Solomon. But the fact that there is no lost tribes story in the Book of Mormon when it is supposed to read almost identical to Solomon's story pretty much puts the kibosh on Solomon having written a lost tribes story that would fit the descriptions that the witnesses gave. And they are the ones that define what it was.

You keep going on about this lost tribe myth as if it's an Achilles heal. As I pointed out to you before... Spalding may have written a story not about the myth but about a few people with lost tribe ancestry. And that story may have been the one presented to R. Patterson. That story may have been the one Rigdon got a hold of, but then Spalding with either his working copy or a returned copy from the printer continued to add to it after Pittsburg and extended the story back in time. That's a possibility which would explain Amity witnesses describing a lost tribe story further back in time to 720 B.C in which those tribes head east to china and fight amongst themselves with a few survivors who then went to America.

And I pointed out to you that your idea is not supported by the witnesses. They are your measuring stick, whether they are accurate or not.

You keep saying the Book of Mormon isn't a lost tribe story...but the witnesses other than Aron (who it's known he wasn't religious) didn't describe it as a lost tribe story but rather as an explanation that the moundbuilders were descendants from an exiled person of the lost tribes who went to Jerusalem. That's not a lost tribe story Glenn. It simply is not consistent with the myth..but it is consistent with historical accounts which assume not only that the tribes went north but that some went south after being exiled. And this Spalding storyline is consistent with the Book of Mormon. And just because there are remarks within the Book of Mormon that the lost tribes live somewhere..those could easily have been added to Spalding's story, in fact someone who was religious and wanted the story to agree with the myth would add that.

John Spalding, Martha Spalding, Aaron Wright, Henry Lake, and Abner Jackson described it as a lost tribes story. They did not describe as a story of a descendant of one of the lost tribes who had went to Jerusalem. Yes, the lost tribes story is not consistent with the Book of Mormon. And the lost tribes story is not consistent with the statements of the other witnesses. But they are consistent with the views of many people of the time that the American Indians were descendants of the lost tribes who had emigrated to the Americas via the Bering Straits. You can speculate all that you wish and play maybe this and that, but all of that speculation does not address what the witnesses said.

It was a historical romance of the first settlers of America, endeavoring to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews, or the lost tribes.

He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question.

This book represented the American Indians as the descendants of the lost tribes

When at his house, one day, he showed and read to me a history he was writing, of the lost tribes of Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America, and that the Indians were their decendants.

Spaulding read much of his manuscript to my father, and in conversation with him, explained his views of the old fortifications in this country, and told his Romance. 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.

None of those statements support you idea of a derivative lost tribes story which involves a few descendants of one of the tribes only referenced indirectly, but rather are plainly about what those people and Solomon believed about the lost tribes legend. Whether you think Solomon believed in that myth or not is irrelevant. The witnesses said that he believed it, and carried it out in his story.

Glenn

[_marg]

Again, you are trying to read the mind of Solomon Spalding rather than looking at the statements by the witnesses and what they believed. Martha Spalding said "He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question."

That statement is pretty clear. But there is no lost tribes story in the Book of Mormon.

Glenn..we are looking at what they said about Spalding's book...not the Book of Mormon. Your argument is inconsistent. On the one hand you argue they must have been familiar with the lost tribe myth and the popular Jewish Indian theory of their day, but on the other hand despite this familiarity you argue they described a Spalding story not consistent with the myth. So if they knew the myth, and it's not consistent then why are they saying Spalding wrote to explain the AM Indians are descendants of some lost tribes..they should have known better that it didn't explain the lost tribe myth per Esdra.

What they describe indicates despite what they must have known that Spalding wrote something different to the myth & associated Jew.Ind theories. The myth versus the secular historical version differs in that the secular version assumes assimilation of lost tribes after exile with some tribes being sent north and some go south. The secular version describes those exiled Israelist tribes in 720 B.C. as lost tribes. So it's quite understandable that the witnesses were simply referring to the exiled tribes..referred to as lost tribes. Of course though Spalding would have been tying it to the biblical historical account, but not the myth.

I read somewhere that she was likely instrumental in his changed views on religion. I don't feel like searching for it, as it's not important. As for Aron Wright it's in his obituary.."he was not a professed follower of Christ". My point anyhow Glenn was that not everyone was steeped in religious belief back then.

What is important is what the witnesses would have understood and meant by a lost tribes story.

Correct but as well what is important is what Spalding told them about his understanding of the exile of the Tribes and what he was presenting in his story. Whether they know the myth or not makes no difference. The story does not have to be about the myth..because frankly the myth doesn't offer a conclusion, the myth has the tribes still lost. The Jewish Indian theory of Ethan Smith popular in their day accounts for the tribes, but Sol was writing before Ethan Smith and he may have focused on a blood line to the lost tribes as opposed to a story about the lost tribes.

He does tell how and when he heard Spalding's story.

Abner Jackson : "This romance, Mr. Spalding brought with him on a visit to my father, a short time before he moved from Conneaut to Pittsburgh. At that time I was confined to the house with a lame knee, and so I was in company with them and heard the conversation that passed between them."

He didn't discuss with Spalding, his father did. He is still recalling lost tribes involved Glenn...so that contradicts your theory the witnesses must have been confused, that they heard others talk about the Book of Mormon being about lost tribes and got confused and thought spalding's was as well, that really the only story Spalding wrote had nothing to do with lost tribes, i.e. MSCC. And Abners' recall of lost tribes, contradicts the theory that the other witnesses lied because they had heard talk of the Book of Mormon being abut lost tribes. Abner doesn't help your theories at all, he supports the conneaut witnesses with regards to recalling lost tribes being involved as ancestors of Indian. HIs recall only differs in that he recalls that Spalding wrote a story further back in time to the lost tribes in 720 B.C. and consistent with popular myths in early 1830's

I looked into Morse's book, I believe it's on the web at google books and I couldn't find anything about indians being descendants of lost tribes. I did read something about some Jewish tribe living in China maintaining their customs and faith beliefs and that they came from Judah (but not from the 720 B.C. time)

Given that Abner didn't have discussions with Spalding, that he only listened in on a conversation, that Spalding was visiting and so he didn't have access to read himself nor much exposure to Spalding reading, that his recall is inconsistent with the others...then it would seem he's the one that is confusing Spalding's story being about the exiled lost tribes of 720 B.C. and linking it to the current in his day Jew Indian theory as opposed to recalling a Spalding version described by the witnesses of a later time period not fully consistent with the myth or the Jewish/Indian theory in 1833...but consistent with secular history of the exiled Israelites.

Abner clearly tied the lost tribes to Solomon's story. And I actually agree with you that Abner was probably recalling something from Morse's geography coupled with discussions about the lost tribes rather than anything actually from the manuscript. As were the rest of the witnesses that recalled something about Solomon's story.

I think Abner might have recalled a discussion about lost tribes that Spalding had with his father. Spalding may have discussed lost tribes and even explained the myth to those not familiar, however he could also easily explain the tribes have never been found and therefore his version brings back the lost tribe myth to some extent, with the blood line still existing in Am Indians.

You keep going on about this lost tribe myth as if it's an Achilles heal. As I pointed out to you before... Spalding may have written a story not about the myth but about a few people with lost tribe ancestry. And that story may have been the one presented to R. Patterson. That story may have been the one Rigdon got a hold of, but then Spalding with either his working copy or a returned copy from the printer continued to add to it after Pittsburg and extended the story back in time. That's a possibility which would explain Amity witnesses describing a lost tribe story further back in time to 720 B.C in which those tribes head east to china and fight amongst themselves with a few survivors who then went to America.

And I pointed out to you that your idea is not supported by the witnesses. They are your measuring stick, whether they are accurate or not.

Once again Glenn..the secular historical exiled tribe story referred to a lost tribes and the lost tribe myth are 2 different things. There are the lost tribes who are the exiled lost tribes by Assyrians in 720 B.C. which is historically accepted and then there are the various myths which have evolved, not historically accepted. It doesn't matter whether the witnesses know the myth or not, all that matters is what Spalding wrote and being as he didn't accept a literal Bible, there is no reason to assume he would have believed a literal myth story of lost tribes was true.

John Spalding, Martha Spalding, Aaron Wright, Henry Lake, and Abner Jackson described it as a lost tribes story. They did not describe as a story of a descendant of one of the lost tribes who had went to Jerusalem. Yes, the lost tribes story is not consistent with the Book of Mormon. And the lost tribes story is not consistent with the statements of the other witnesses. But they are consistent with the views of many people of the time that the American Indians were descendants of the lost tribes who had emigrated to the Americas via the Bering Straits. You can speculate all that you wish and play maybe this and that, but all of that speculation does not address what the witnesses said.

If they were familiar with what other people were saying about Am. Indians being descendants of lost tribes per the myth, since that was so popular around that time, and if they intended by mentioning lost tribes to be describing Spalding's story being about the one and only religiously based lost tribes story myth portrayed as ancestors of am. Indians....then they would have appreciated their recall of Spalding's story was not consistent with the one and only lost tribe myth. So since this religiously based lost tribe myth was so well known and since the theory in their time popularized was Am Indians were descendants... therefore the best explanation for the incongruence must be that Spalding's story they knew began later than 720 B.C. with the key characters in 600 B.C. having ancestry to the Israelite tribes exiled who were then as now, commonly referred to as the lost tribes.

John Spalding: It was a historical romance of the first settlers of America, endeavoring to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews, or the lost tribes.

Martha Spalding: "He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question.

Henry Lake: This book represented the American Indians as the descendants of the lost tribes

Aaron Wright: When at his house, one day, he showed and read to me a history he was writing, of the lost tribes of Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America, and that the Indians were their decendants.

Abner Jackson: Spalding read much of his manuscript to my father, and in conversation with him, explained his views of the old fortifications in this country, and told his Romance. 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."
-----------------------------
None of those statements support you idea of a derivative lost tribes story which involves a few descendants of one of the tribes only referenced indirectly, but rather are plainly about what those people and Solomon believed about the lost tribes legend. Whether you think Solomon believed in that myth or not is irrelevant. The witnesses said that he believed it, and carried it out in his story.

Their statements supports a story recognizing a secular historical account of exiled Israelite tribes in 720 B.C. with descendants living in 600 B.C. in Jerusalem. Those exiled Israelite tribes are commonly referred to as lost tribes.

As far as each one, Abner's exposure was minimal and he didn't discuss with Spalding. Aron Wright may have been uninterested in lost tribes..and may have not appreciated the secular account per the Bible.
The rest..are in line with a Spalding story of a secular account of descendants (by 100 years) of some lost tribes. John wavers between Jew and Lost tribes because as he became familiar with the Jew/Indians theory popularized after Spalding died, he may have realized when giving his statement in 1833 that it didn't sound right to have characters leaving Jerusalem and having lost tribe ancestry. Martha mentions a few lost tribes, so a few characters may have been descendants of a few of the tribes.

[_Roger]

Wow... Glenn is still going on about the lost tribes thing? Sheesh. I am way too busy to keep up with this, but I note this from marg:

but Sol was writing before Ethan Smith and he may have focused on a blood line to the lost tribes as opposed to a story about the lost tribes.

Quite true. In fact a single blood line is all that would have been required to qualify as a "lost tribes" interpretation for Indian ancestry. The Davidic bloodline is what was important in the Jewish geneologies. The 10 tribes were scattered and many refugees indeed fled south, but archeology has also shown that even with that, the majority of the population actually remained in northern Isreal and intermarried with forced immigrants. But again, the relevant point is that, as marg points out, Spalding was writing fiction and the minimum requirement to accurately labelling his tale a "lost tribes story" to account for the ancestry of the American Indians, is a single familial bloodline.

But I think the larger point, Glenn, is when you insist that:

Yes, the lost tribes story is not consistent with the Book of Mormon. And the lost tribes story is not consistent with the statements of the other witnesses. But they are consistent with the views of many people of the time that the American Indians were descendants of the lost tribes who had emigrated to the Americas via the Bering Straits.

You have a problem tying all of this together with Hurlbut and MSCC. The simple fact is that MSCC is no more a lost tribes story than is the Book of Mormon. And yet virtually every S/R critic I am aware of insists that MSCC is the only ms Spalding wrote and that it must therefore be the actual basis of the rumors in the first place. And yet, as you point out, here we see the witnesses talking about a lost tribes story. This goes back to my earlier argument--they must either be lying or telling the truth. They can't honestly come up with this lost tribes stuff from either the Book of Mormon or MSCC. Either they got it from an actual Spalding ms that is no longer extant, OR they got it from the popular sentiment (as you suggest) but, in that case, I have a very hard time believing they sincerely thought they were telling the truth.

[_GlennThigpen]

Wow... Glenn is still going on about the lost tribes thing? Sheesh. I am way too busy to keep up with this, but I note this from marg:

but Sol was writing before Ethan Smith and he may have focused on a blood line to the lost tribes as opposed to a story about the lost tribes.

Quite true. In fact a single blood line is all that would have been required to qualify as a "lost tribes" interpretation for Indian ancestry. The Davidic bloodline is what was important in the Jewish geneologies. The 10 tribes were scattered and many refugees indeed fled south, but archeology has also shown that even with that, the majority of the population actually remained in northern Isreal and intermarried with forced immigrants. But again, the relevant point is that, as marg points out, Spalding was writing fiction and the minimum requirement to accurately labelling his tale a "lost tribes story" to account for the ancestry of the American Indians, is a single familial bloodline.

Roger, I disagree with you on that point. You cannot impose your idea of what constitutes lost tribes story into the framework of this discussion. You have to understand what the witnesses meant by a lost tribes story. The idea that the lost tribes had somehow migrated to the Americas and became the ancestors of the American Indians predated Solomon Spalding by over a hundred years. I pointed out the View of the Hebrewsas just one book that underscored what people of thar era would understand about a lost tribes story. Abner Jackson actually put into words that understanding, i.e. that the lost tribes had migrated vis the Bering straits and that Solomon had incorporated that theme into his story.

But I think the larger point, Glenn, is when you insist that:

Yes, the lost tribes story is not consistent with the Book of Mormon. And the lost tribes story is not consistent with the statements of the other witnesses. But they are consistent with the views of many people of the time that the American Indians were descendants of the lost tribes who had emigrated to the Americas via the Bering Straits.

You have a problem tying all of this together with Hurlbut and MSCC. The simple fact is that MSCC is no more a lost tribes story than is the Book of Mormon. And yet virtually every S/R critic I am aware of insists that MSCC is the only ms Spalding wrote and that it must therefore be the actual basis of the rumors in the first place. And yet, as you point out, here we see the witnesses talking about a lost tribes story. This goes back to my earlier argument--they must either be lying or telling the truth. They can't honestly come up with this lost tribes stuff from either the Book of Mormon or MSCC. Either they got it from an actual Spalding ms that is no longer extant, OR they got it from the popular sentiment (as you suggest) but, in that case, I have a very hard time believing they sincerely thought they were telling the truth.

Roger, you seem not to really understand the arguments that have been arrayed against the S/R theory. I am not arguing that Solomon actually wrote a story about the lost tribes coming to the Americas and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians. I have stated that it was a popular idea. Several authors wrotes about it, including Ethan Smith. It is possible that Solomon Spalding actually believed that theory at one point and discussed it with friends and neighbors but never actually wrote a story about it. It is possible that the the neighbors remembered those and other discussions aboutthe lost tribes and after twenty years conflated the stories.
It is also possible that Solomon did write a lost tribes story, but it certainly does not show up in the Book of Mormon in which case the witnesses were inaccurate. And if he did not write a story about the lost tribes, the witnesses were inaccurate.

It is my opinion that Solomon did not write a lost tribes story and that those witnesses were mistaken. In another post I pointed out many instances where the descriptions by the witnesses of the contents of Solomon's story fit content from the Roman story very well and are not echoed in the Book of Mormon. There are several places where the witnesses remember things from Solomon's story that do find echoes in the Book of Mormon also, such as Martha Spalding saying that Solomon described some of the people as being very large, which also can be found in Ether and Joseph Miller describing the red markings on the foreheads of the Amelekites which has a counterpart in the Roman story.

Whether the witness were lying or not remembering correctly is really irrelevant. What is relevant is that when you discard the Book of Mormon names, you have strong echoes from the Roman story.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn..we are looking at what they said about Spalding's book...not the Book of Mormon. Your argument is inconsistent. On the one hand you argue they must have been familiar with the lost tribe myth and the popular Jewish Indian theory of their day, but on the other hand despite this familiarity you argue they described a Spalding story not consistent with the myth. So if they knew the myth, and it's not consistent then why are they saying Spalding wrote to explain the AM Indians are descendants of some lost tribes..they should have known better that it didn't explain the lost tribe myth per Esdra.

I agree that they should have known that the Book of Mormon did not support a lost tribes story, which is evidence that they did not read the Book of Mormon very closely. They only skimmed it looking for a few key words that had been supplied by Hurlbut. It is not my fault that they were so careless.

What they describe indicates despite what they must have known that Spalding wrote something different to the myth & associated Jew.Ind theories. The myth versus the secular historical version differs in that the secular version assumes assimilation of lost tribes after exile with some tribes being sent north and some go south. The secular version describes those exiled Israelist tribes in 720 B.C. as lost tribes. So it's quite understandable that the witnesses were simply referring to the exiled tribes..referred to as lost tribes. Of course though Spalding would have been tying it to the biblical historical account, but not the myth.

marge, you are ignoring what they said again. When a witnesses says that Solomon had long believed that the American Indians were descendents of the lost tribes, they are not talking about secular history, secular history that had not been written at that time. A lost tribes story that promotes the idea that the lost tribes migrated to the Americas and became the ancestors of the American Indians does not support a later secular viewpoint that the tribes became assimilated.

Correct but as well what is important is what Spalding told them about his understanding of the exile of the Tribes and what he was presenting in his story. Whether they know the myth or not makes no difference. The story does not have to be about the myth..because frankly the myth doesn't offer a conclusion, the myth has the tribes still lost. The Jewish Indian theory of Ethan Smith popular in their day accounts for the tribes, but Sol was writing before Ethan Smith and he may have focused on a blood line to the lost tribes as opposed to a story about the lost tribes.

marge, the myth of the lost tribes coming to the Americas and becoming the Ancestors of the lost tribes is the conclusion of the myth fuels by that passage in Esdras. And that story is what the witnesses said Solomon believed and wrote about. It doesn't matter that Solomon was writing years before Ethan Smith wrote his book. That idea predated Solomon by at least a hundred years. And, as I noted, Abner Jackson spelled it out rather clearly.

He does tell how and when he heard Spalding's story.

Abner Jackson : "This romance, Mr. Spalding brought with him on a visit to my father, a short time before he moved from Conneaut to Pittsburgh. At that time I was confined to the house with a lame knee, and so I was in company with them and heard the conversation that passed between them."

He didn't discuss with Spalding, his father did. He is still recalling lost tribes involved Glenn...so that contradicts your theory the witnesses must have been confused, that they heard others talk about the Book of Mormon being about lost tribes and got confused and thought spalding's was as well, that really the only story Spalding wrote had nothing to do with lost tribes, i.e. MSCC. And Abners' recall of lost tribes, contradicts the theory that the other witnesses lied because they had heard talk of the Book of Mormon being abut lost tribes. Abner doesn't help your theories at all, he supports the conneaut witnesses with regards to recalling lost tribes being involved as ancestors of Indian. HIs recall only differs in that he recalls that Spalding wrote a story further back in time to the lost tribes in 720 B.C. and consistent with popular myths in early 1830's

marge, you are way off base here. The lost tribes story popular in the 1830's and earlier was about the 720 exile and possible emigration to the Americas. Whether Solomon wrote such a book or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the story is not in the Book of Mormon.

I looked into Morse's book, I believe it's on the web at google books and I couldn't find anything about indians being descendants of lost tribes. I did read something about some Jewish tribe living in China maintaining their customs and faith beliefs and that they came from Judah (but not from the 720 B.C. time)

Given that Abner didn't have discussions with Spalding, that he only listened in on a conversation, that Spalding was visiting and so he didn't have access to read himself nor much exposure to Spalding reading, that his recall is inconsistent with the others...then it would seem he's the one that is confusing Spalding's story being about the exiled lost tribes of 720 B.C. and linking it to the current in his day Jew Indian theory as opposed to recalling a Spalding version described by the witnesses of a later time period not fully consistent with the myth or the Jewish/Indian theory in 1833...but consistent with secular history of the exiled Israelites.

As well as Aaron Wright, John Spalding, Martha Spalding, and Henry Lake.

Once again Glenn..the secular historical exiled tribe story referred to a lost tribes and the lost tribe myth are 2 different things. There are the lost tribes who are the exiled lost tribes by Assyrians in 720 B.C. which is historically accepted and then there are the various myths which have evolved, not historically accepted. It doesn't matter whether the witnesses know the myth or not, all that matters is what Spalding wrote and being as he didn't accept a literal Bible, there is no reason to assume he would have believed a literal myth story of lost tribes was true.

You do not know what Solomon wrote. You have to go by what the witnesses said.

If they were familiar with what other people were saying about Am. Indians being descendants of lost tribes per the myth, since that was so popular around that time, and if they intended by mentioning lost tribes to be describing Spalding's story being about the one and only religiously based lost tribes story myth portrayed as ancestors of am. Indians....then they would have appreciated their recall of Spalding's story was not consistent with the one and only lost tribe myth. So since this religiously based lost tribe myth was so well known and since the theory in their time popularized was Am Indians were descendants... therefore the best explanation for the incongruence must be that Spalding's story they knew began later than 720 B.C. with the key characters in 600 B.C. having ancestry to the Israelite tribes exiled who were then as now, commonly referred to as the lost tribes.

Your lack of knowledege of the Bible is showing marge. There was no lost tribes story around 600 BC. the Babylonian capitivity of the Jews happened aound 587 BC and they are not confused with a lost tribes story. The Jews returned to Jerusalem after a seventy year exile. Please show me a secular history book from the early 1800's that espoused that idea. Modern history books so not reflect the ideas and views from that era.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Quite true. In fact a single blood line is all that would have been required to qualify as a "lost tribes" interpretation for Indian ancestry.

They can't honestly come up with this lost tribes stuff from either the Book of Mormon or MSCC.

Sounds contradictory to me.

The 10 tribes were scattered and many refugees indeed fled south, but archeology has also shown that even with that, the majority of the population actually remained in northern Isreal and intermarried with forced immigrants.

What really happened isn’t pertinent here; it’s what Solomon and his contemporaries thought.

But again, the relevant point is that, as marg points out, Spalding was writing fiction and the minimum requirement to accurately labelling his tale a "lost tribes story" to account for the ancestry of the American Indians, is a single familial bloodline.

You can’t simply argue that Spalding was writing fiction, and therefore he could have written whatever you imagine. You have to make a compelling case for his changing the received tradition in his culture. The Book of Mormon explicitly rejects the lost tribe-Indian origin theory, so we know why the Indians are Jewish and yet not the lost tribes. What would Spalding’s motivation be? I’m not saying that he did, but if he had connected the Indians with the lost tribes, wouldn’t he had followed something like Rederick McKee claimed?

You have a problem tying all of this together with Hurlbut and MSCC. The simple fact is that MSCC is no more a lost tribes story than is the Book of Mormon. And yet virtually every S/R critic I am aware of insists that MSCC is the only ms Spalding wrote and that it must therefore be the actual basis of the rumors in the first place. And yet, as you point out, here we see the witnesses talking about a lost tribes story. This goes back to my earlier argument--they must either be lying or telling the truth. They can't honestly come up with this lost tribes stuff from either the Book of Mormon or MSCC. Either they got it from an actual Spalding ms that is no longer extant, OR they got it from the popular sentiment (as you suggest) but, in that case, I have a very hard time believing they sincerely thought they were telling the truth.

[/quote]

You are free to make whatever conclusion you want about sincerity of the witnesses—I have suggested the possibility that their memories were tainted and that they may have been unaware of this. That’s why I referenced Loftus’s work on false memory. Their mention of “lost tribes” for Indian origins complicates their testimonies. We know they are wrong about the Book of Mormon. Either their memories are accurate about Spalding’s MS, and therefore that MS has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, or their memories are wrong about that aspect of Spalding’s MS, and therefore can’t be relied on about other aspects, like names. The Mormon testimony regarding the manner of Joseph Smith’s dictating the Book of Mormon is far less problematic.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Do me a favor Dan, don't teach me about your interpretation of the Book of Mormon and how it should be viewed, I'm not interested in your perspective.

I understand why you aren’t interested; it doesn’t suit your view that Spalding was the author of the opening chapters of the Book of Mormon, around which most of the discussion by Spalding witnesses revolved. A biographical approach that associates the characters of Lehi and Nephi (the two main names allegedly remembered by Spalding witnesses) with Joseph Smith and his father would be counterproductive to your views. Moreover, you are probably not equipped to handle such discussion, because that requires knowledge not just about Spalding but also the Book of Mormon and Mormon sources. When we compare the Lehi family with Joseph Smith’s, we find point of comparison that would be amazingly coincidental if Solomon had written it. As I wrote in my book, "It was fitting that Joseph's book began with a family that was, in many ways, comparable to the Smith family. Both were displaced and disinherited, having left the land of their inheritance to settle in a more promising region." (p. 131) To simplify my discussion, I will briefly list the similarities between Nephi and Joseph Smith:

Both are large in stature
Both are middle children
Both are allied with the father (and favored over older siblings)
Both support their fathers’ dream/visions (against older siblings who are allied with the mother)
Both interpret and correct their fathers’ dreams
Both supersede and supplant their fathers

Other aspects of the story are:

The general content of one of Lehi’s dreams—the tree of life—is very similar (not exact) to one that Lucy Smith remembered her husband having. The main difference between the dreams was in Joseph Smith Sr.’s, all his family gets to the tree (which would be consistent with his belief in Universalism), whereas in Lehi’s dream only family members who support him make it to the tree. Interestingly, Nephi has the same dream, but noticed something his father had missed—the river was filthy and represented hell, possibly a message to Joseph Smith Sr. Here the son is correcting or reinterpreting the father’s dream-visions in a way that would have been significant to Joseph Smith Sr.

Lehi obtains the Liahona, or compass. This compass is a brass ball with two spindles inside that point the direction to go in the wilderness and work (not magnetically) but according to faith. Occasionally writing appears on the outside surface of the ball. This seems to combine Joseph Smith Jr.’s seer stone with Joseph Smith Sr.’s divining rods.

The Book of Mormon’s narrative seems to reflect themes and concerns important to the Smith family, and has little to do with Spalding’s world.

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.

I think my book is worth a second look. Lucy had a fantastic memory. The MS she dictated to Martha Corey in 1845-46 is filled with statements that can be checked against civil records, and while she isn’t perfect, occasionally off by a year or two, she is highly reliable. She likely remembered her husband’s dreams because she largely disagreed with them at the time, and they were likely used against her membership in the Presbyterian Church. Not only did her membership imply agreement with the minister’s suggestion that unbaptized Alvin had gone to hell, but it conflicted with Joseph Sr.’s dreams that there was no true church. Lucy is also careful to mention that she could not remember two other dreams. Moreover, the dream Lucy remembered is thematically similar, but differs from the Book of Mormon version in significant ways. The idea that you forget your dreams isn’t an argument that Lucy couldn’t remember these significant dreams that were considered revelatory by her husband.

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.

Joseph Smith’s feigning ignorance was part of his also pretending he was reading from the stone.

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 statement of Emma Smith was given to Edmund C. Briggs in 1856 (reported in 1884 in Saints’ Herald). You can’t be seriously suggesting that Emma (in 1856) was inventing the story to respond to Henry Lake’s 1833 statement. There’s no connection between the two statements, and your suggestion is a post hoc fallacy—because Lake’s statement preceded Emma’s doesn’t mean, Lake’s caused Emma’s. David Whitmer also mentioned the story in 1886 without attributing it to Emma. Emma would have been talking about the lost 116-page MS, for which she was scribe part of the time. She undoubtedly told the story as proof that Joseph Smith couldn’t have been the author, since he wasn’t smart enough. Emma’s reasoning wouldn’t apply very well as a counter to the Spalding theory.

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?

Obviously he was playing his role was reader of the text through a magic stone. One of Emma’s weaknesses was the she thought she was too smart to be fooled, and certainly smarter than her husband. He was the one from a canal city with intelligent parents, while she had been raised in a virtual wilderness. Your question is bizarre to say the least. You might as well ask why he was reading from the stone if he couldn’t.

[_marg]

I agree that they should have known that the Book of Mormon did not support a lost tribes story, which is evidence that they did not read the Book of Mormon very closely. They only skimmed it looking for a few key words that had been supplied by Hurlbut. It is not my fault that they were so careless.

Skimming the Book of Mormon is not going to bring to mind lost tribes. The words "lost tribes" are barely mentioned. The fact that Lehi is a descendant of the Manasseh tribe is only mentioned once, it's buried within the text and why would they know the Manasseh was one of the lost tribes and even so unless one is familiar with the lost tribe story that would be meaningless.

Usually people when reading will read at least the first few pages and right at the beginning it's a family that's being talked about not tribes. So your theory that they skimmed the Book of Mormon and thought is was about lost tribes doesn't hold water.

However even if one adopted your theory, it suggests they deliberately lied. And then we'd have all other witnesses later..were deliberately lying.

marge, you are ignoring what they said again. When a witnesses says that Solomon had long believed that the American Indians were descendents of the lost tribes, they are not talking about secular history, secular history that had not been written at that time. A lost tribes story that promotes the idea that the lost tribes migrated to the Americas and became the ancestors of the American Indians does not support a later secular viewpoint that the tribes became assimilated.

Glenn, Spalding had a keen interest and studied the Bible, he was a skeptic and didn't accept Biblical myths. So there is no reason to think that Spalding would have accepted at face value the Esdras lost tribe myth. He would have been aware that the Esdras prophecy of these exiled tribes dispersing to far corners of the world to uninhabited land..was written by a man or some men...well after the date of the event ..and was simply a prophecized myth, and no more. Of course it would occur to him whether or not anyone wrote about it, that the obvious reason the history of the tribes exiled was no longer written about is that they assimilated whereever they went or were exiled to. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

With regards to this comment you make: "A lost tribes story that promotes the idea that the lost tribes migrated to the Americas and became the ancestors of the American Indians does not support a later secular viewpoint that the tribes became assimilated." Spalding's story evolved over at least 4 years if not much more. Initially the witnesses say he started the story timeline at 600 B.C...well actually he started even before that in 300 A.D. with MSCC and then took the story back further in time to 600 B.C. He may have chosen to start at 600 B.C. so he could focus on a few characters as opposed to whole tribes and get to the story in America which was his main focus..to show the moundbuilders and Indians as descendants of a lost tribe bloodline. Later Amity witnesses recall a storyline in China...and it may be if they are correct, that after Pittsburg he continued to take the story back..to incorporate more of the lost tribe myth and address the lost tribes from 720 B.C. But initially that may have been perceived as unnecessary and too much to tackle.

Correct but as well what is important is what Spalding told them about his understanding of the exile of the Tribes and what he was presenting in his story. Whether they know the myth or not makes no difference. The story does not have to be about the myth..because frankly the myth doesn't offer a conclusion, the myth has the tribes still lost. The Jewish Indian theory of Ethan Smith popular in their day accounts for the tribes, but Sol was writing before Ethan Smith and he may have focused on a blood line to the lost tribes as opposed to a story about the lost tribes.

marge, the myth of the lost tribes coming to the Americas and becoming the Ancestors of the lost tribes is the conclusion of the myth fuels by that passage in Esdras. And that story is what the witnesses said Solomon believed and wrote about. It doesn't matter that Solomon was writing years before Ethan Smith wrote his book. That idea predated Solomon by at least a hundred years. And, as I noted, Abner Jackson spelled it out rather clearly.

Abner Jackson is not a strong witness as far details are concerned, his recollection is based on a visit Spalding made to their house, and he listened in on a conversation as opposed to personally discussing anything with Spalding. Be that as it may he still is recalling lost tribes having to do with what Spalding wrote..so he's not recalling MSCC.

Now you are talking about the Jewish Indian tribe theory which you say Spalding would have known. Sure but once again, it's based on a myth as you point out, fueled by the passage in Esdras but being as he studied the Bible and its history and that he rejected myths..he would have rejected the Esdras myth as is. Tthere is no reason for him to carry it on as it. His focus was the moundbuilders and Am. Indians and tying their ancestry to the lost tribes. So rather than start at the 720 B.C. point ..by starting at the 600 B.C. point he short-cuts the story and reduces explaining the events right after the exile.

He didn't discuss with Spalding, his father did. He is still recalling lost tribes involved Glenn...so that contradicts your theory the witnesses must have been confused, that they heard others talk about the Book of Mormon being about lost tribes and got confused and thought spalding's was as well, that really the only story Spalding wrote had nothing to do with lost tribes, i.e. MSCC. And Abners' recall of lost tribes, contradicts the theory that the other witnesses lied because they had heard talk of the Book of Mormon being abut lost tribes. Abner doesn't help your theories at all, he supports the conneaut witnesses with regards to recalling lost tribes being involved as ancestors of Indian. HIs recall only differs in that he recalls that Spalding wrote a story further back in time to the lost tribes in 720 B.C. and consistent with popular myths in early 1830's

marge, you are way off base here. The lost tribes story popular in the 1830's and earlier was about the 720 exile and possible emigration to the Americas. Whether Solomon wrote such a book or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the story is not in the Book of Mormon.

The problem is not myself and my understanding, nor the witnesses, the problem rests with you and your inability to acknowledge that one can refer to the exiled tribes in 720 B.C. as "lost tribes" without adopting the Esdras myth. Spalding's story, initially at least, was not about the lost tribes and right after their exile, it was about tying the Am. Indian & moundbuilders to the blood line of the exiled Israelites of 720 B.C.. As if say, he may have continued to take it back further in time as his story continued to evolve after Pittsburg.

Once again Glenn..the secular historical exiled tribe story referred to a lost tribes and the lost tribe myth are 2 different things. There are the lost tribes who are the exiled lost tribes by Assyrians in 720 B.C. which is historically accepted and then there are the various myths which have evolved, not historically accepted. It doesn't matter whether the witnesses know the myth or not, all that matters is what Spalding wrote and being as he didn't accept a literal Bible, there is no reason to assume he would have believed a literal myth story of lost tribes was true.

You do not know what Solomon wrote. You have to go by what the witnesses said.

The problem is not what the witnesses say, it's your limited notion of the what the term lost tribe can incorporate. You appear to have difficulty perceiving the exiled Israelites from a secular view point...and it appears that you perceive the story as only one version..one which adopts Esdras as if it's literally true. You appear to think of the lost tribes story as involving a God who punished the Northern Tribes and allowed the Assyrians to conquer and exile them because of the "wickedness" and any deviation from that can't exist. Spalding didn't accept biblical myths as literally true, so for him to start at 600 B.C. with someone in Jerusalem with a blood line connection to the lost tribes...wouldn't be a problem. He wasn't writing a lost tribe story, he was writing to link the Am. Ind & moundbuilders to the lost tribes and it would tap into the Jew indian theories people speculated about.

If they were familiar with what other people were saying about Am. Indians being descendants of lost tribes per the myth, since that was so popular around that time, and if they intended by mentioning lost tribes to be describing Spalding's story being about the one and only religiously based lost tribes story myth portrayed as ancestors of am. Indians....then they would have appreciated their recall of Spalding's story was not consistent with the one and only lost tribe myth. So since this religiously based lost tribe myth was so well known and since the theory in their time popularized was Am Indians were descendants... therefore the best explanation for the incongruence must be that Spalding's story they knew began later than 720 B.C. with the key characters in 600 B.C. having ancestry to the Israelite tribes exiled who were then as now, commonly referred to as the lost tribes.

Your lack of knowledege of the Bible is showing marge. There was no lost tribes story around 600 BC. the Babylonian capitivity of the Jews happened aound 587 BC and they are not confused with a lost tribes story. The Jews returned to Jerusalem after a seventy year exile. Please show me a secular history book from the early 1800's that espoused that idea. Modern history books so not reflect the ideas and views from that era.

I didn't say there was a lost tribe story in 600 B.C. Glenn, I am talking about the witnesses' knowledge.
You say Spalding and the witnesses would have known the lost tribe myth as well as the Jew- Indian theory. And I'm saying if that's the case, then why are they describing a Spalding story which deviates from what you claim they would know and should not have deviated from.

The problem is you can't or won't accept that there can be any deviation from an Esdras fueled lost tribe scenario. You don't accept that when someone mentions "lost tribes" that they could be referring to the exiled Israelites in 720 B.C. and not to the entire myth per Esdras.