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

[_Roger]

Dale wrote:

And -- I think that we need to admit that even the very most
Spaldingesque portions of the Book of Mormon need not be taken
as unadulterated, pure language from Spalding's original writings.

Agreed. But that's exactly where our critics want to force us. Case in point:

You place too much stock in your lost-116 page MS argument since the witnesses accused Joseph Smith of plagiarism based on the present text. They said it was the same, only without the religious matter. Miller said there were verbatim passages in the present text, despite the fact that it had been rewritten twice.

It's much easier to argue against S/R if it can be boxed in to such restrictive boundaries.

I think we also need to preserve enough rational analysis to know
that Mr. Spalding had sense enough not to present his Oberlin MS
as a final, polished narrative, ready for Silas Engles' pressroom.

Again, we agree, but our critics refuse to preserve sufficient rational analysis. They insist that MSCC is the only manuscript Spalding ever wrote that could possibly be confused with the Book of Mormon and since a Spalding ms was submitted for publication, it must have been MSCC.

Back in the days when I was known to have consumed more than
a few beers, before making entries in my personal journal, I was
wont to scribble out an incoherent rigamarole of daily records --
not meant for anybody's eyes but my own. My wife happened upon
one of those old booklets recently -- and suggested that I burn them.

Once again, the rational conclusion is obvious: MSCC is simply not in a state that would suggest it is ready--or even close to being ready--for publication. Nevertheless, it is still relatively free from blatant grammatical errors of the type we see splattered all over the 1830 Book of Mormon text. Such as the mixing of "was" and "were" or "them" and "those." A few such grammatical oddities could be seen as anomalies but when they occur repeatedly in the text, patterns begin to emerge. But--at least according to sources I am hearing from--those patterns are not consistent throughout the 1830 text.

Again, my question for Dan is whether or not he has done a scholarly examination of the error patterns in the 1830 text and whether he has or can reconcile those patterns with the notion that Joseph produced all of them.

All the best.

[_beastie]

Great. Please give me your opinion--from the position of a mind "not made up"--on the parallels between Spalding's discovery narrative and Smith's.

I'm sure you know what I am referring to... both walking near home, both contemplating the ancient inhabitants of the land, both walk up a hill, both stumble upon a flat stone, both use a lever to dislodge it, both discover ancient manuscripts written in an ancient language underneath the stone, both eventually translate the manuscripts, both contain a history of the former inhabitants of this continent, etc.

What do you think is the best explanation for these parallels?

All the best.

As I understood it, the Spalding theory is that there is a missing manuscript, and THAT one is the source of the Book of Mormon, correct? Manuscript Story is the one with this introduction, but that is not the one proposed as the source, correct?

Aside from that point, I think there are some things to keep in mind. One is that, as others have stated, it is possible to find parallels almost anywhere, and the parallels should be considered in context of the differences, as well. A second point is that it's possible both stories have a source somewhere else - perhaps this idea, finding an ancient text hidden under a rock, was part of some cultural lore of the time. Off the top of my head, I can't remember the name of that itinerant preacher (maybe Walters? I'll try to find it) who claimed to have translated an ancient document, but it's possible that he, or some other person, cooked up a similar story, which triggered the idea in both Spalding and Smith. A third possibility is that Smith, as he was wont to do, just picked up ideas from different sources and patched them altogether, so maybe this idea did come from Spalding, although that does not mean he plagiarized the entire thing - just picked it for ideas.

Anyway, I certainly haven't studied this intensely enough to feel comfortable making such assertions, I'm just throwing out ideas. I do think the Book of Mormon has a heck of a lot of Joseph Smith in it, and I agree with BH Roberts' conclusion that it was written by an immature mind. That sounds more like Smith than Rigdon or Spalding. But I'm just thinking out loud. I really don't believe I will ever come to a firm conclusion on this question, I just revisit it now and then, and tend to change my mind now and then.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

That particularly candid statement is revealing. Joseph Smith's authorship is assumed. And from that standpoint, Dan looks at the text in an effort "to find insights into Joseph Smith’s motivations and belief system." If this is a viable method--making an assumption of authorship and then looking at the text for clues that might support the assumption--then S/R proponents should be allowed to do the same thing.

If you recall our previous discussion, I told you there is a difference in interpretation and argumentation. When I assumed Joseph Smith’s authorship, it wasn’t in opposition to the Spalding theory. Rather, it was in regard to the ancient vs. modern debate. For the purposes of interpretation, I assumed Joseph Smith was author. I also told you that I wouldn’t use such information as proof that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. I’m using what I think are clear parallels between Joseph Smith and Nephi as anyone would use parallels, but the more subtle information can’t be used in the same fashion. You are quite free to assume Spalding’s or Rigdon’s authorship and see what you get. Another aspect to keep in mind is that I didn’t simply look for clues to support the assumption of Joseph Smith’s authorship—that would be too polemical. I was listening with an ear for understanding Joseph Smith’s beliefs and how he might interpret certain events in his life. It’s much more complex than you imagine.

While I agree that Joseph Smith is the most likely contributer for certain portions of the Book of Mormon text, he is not the most likely contributer for all of it. But Dan's assumption only allows for gaining insight into what Joseph Smith "thinks and feels about himself and the world" because his assumption is that only Joseph Smith contributed content to the text.

That’s only true if we assume you are right. If I’m right that Joseph Smith was sole author, then I’m on the right track. My method isn’t a way a determining authorship, except in rare instances. The only reason I can analyze the Book of Mormon the way I do is because Joseph Smith believed what he was writing, not just making stories up like a novelist. With Spalding’s authorship, you will run into the intentional fallacy, because a novel doesn’t necessarily tell you about what the author believes.

Therefore, given the restriction of his own assumption, Dan must conclude that Joseph Smith cared passionately about infant baptism, communal living, salaried clergy and other doctrines that are more suited to the way in which Sidney Rigdon "thinks and feels about himself and the world" than Joseph Smith.

Do I have to remind you that Joseph Smith and Emma had just lost an infant right before discovering Harris had lost the 116-page MS? If you get a chance to read what I wrote, Mormon’s passionate condemnation of infant baptism could be read as a response to his Methodist in-laws. Joseph Sr. and Lucy Smith didn’t have their children baptized as infants, and when Alvin died in 1823 the Presbyterian minister implied that he had gone to hell. Lucy had lost two infants. Joseph Smith’s uncle Jason Mack was a Seeker who had founded a commune of thirty families in New Brunswick, and Joseph Smith rejected SR’s version of communitarianism. Joseph Smith’s version of restorationism came from his uncle Jason and his father’s views supported by dream-visions.

It is the assumption that limits the interpretation of the data. When we include Rigdon as another possible contributor to the text, we discover that certain portions of the text are better matched to Sidney than to Joseph.

Let’s see your best evidence.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Again, my question for Dan is whether or not he has done a scholarly examination of the error patterns in the 1830 text and whether he has or can reconcile those patterns with the notion that Joseph produced all of them.

Again, make an argument I can assess.

[_Kevin Graham]

Is this the longest thread in forum history or what...

[_Dr. Shades]

Is this the longest thread in forum history or what...

For reasons unknown, all of the longest threads on this forum are or have been Spalding-related.

[_marg]

The only reason I can analyze the Book of Mormon the way I do is because Joseph Smith believed what he was writing, not just making stories up like a novelist. With Spalding’s authorship, you will run into the intentional fallacy, because a novel doesn’t necessarily tell you about what the author believes.

This is an assumption on your part Dan that Smith believed what he was writing. The evidence is not good that he wrote the Book of Mormon on his own. And the evidence is he willingly used deception, at times just to manipulate or spin a yarn, at other times for personal gain. You've already argued in your book, he intentionally was deceptive in his treasure seeking younger days. In later years, his polygamy followed his extramarital affairs..and as a prophet he wanted a means to gain acceptance of his behavior. He'd be quite delusional if he actually thought God was forcing him to bed numerous women, including daughters and wives of the inner circle. So it's more likely Dan, as he learned throughout life from an early age... it's easy to manipulate some people.

I realize what I'm going to suggest to you might seem preposterous given your assumptions, but I think it's a good probability his behavior indicated he didn't believe in an 'interfering in man..sort of God'. He used religion to gain attention, power and his livelihood.

From an earlier post to Roger:

As I have pointed out to you before, you can’t use ignorance as an argument. This is also a fallacy of possible proof, with the added twist that no matter what was in the 116-page MS, it wouldn’t be evidence against your theory. Not only can’t your theory be tested, it can’t be disproved either. Miller claimed passages in the Book of Mormon were taken verbatim from Spalding’s MS. If both sides of a debate were allowed such latitude in handling sources and unbridled speculation, nothing would ever get resolved. That’s why I have tried to encourage you and Marg to do some reading on logic and rules of debate.

Dan the only way any of the theories in this case, can be disproved is by having positive proof of how the book was written...because Spalding is a probability source for the Book of Mormon..given the data..just as Smith is. So we are left with inductive reasoning instead. It's a matter of looking at all the evidence which has been gathered, evaluating that evidence and reaching a best fit conclusion. If either side had "proof" there'd be no need for any accumulation of evidence to evaluate.

Your position would be stronger and the S/R weaker, if Smith showed interest in writing in the years before hand, if he was observed by objective individuals to dictate the Book of Mormon, if he had the sort of knowledge and interest in subject matter of the Book of Mormon, if there weren't the parallels to Spalding in the discovery narrative of MSCC and what Smith described as the discovery narrative for the Book of Mormon, if there weren't so many obvious lies associated with the Book of Mormon and coming from the Book of Mormon witnesses and Smith, if Smith wasn't known as a treasure seeking con artist and opportunist..the list goes on Dan.

The weakness in your approach, is you start off with the assumption Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, and that he was a pious fraud and then you try to make some facts fit, dismissing facts that don't. So you dismiss the S/R witnesses as being confused despite that confusion doesn't describe their recall when they say on some things they 'clearly remember'. You accept the Book of Mormon witnesses as credible despite they must be the most incredible witnesses one could possibly imagine. You look for parallels in the Book of Mormon with Joseph's life even though the parallels are tenuous. You psychoanalyze Smith to suit your purpose..which is to defend the Smith only/pious fraud assumption.

[_Roger]

beastie:

Thanks for your response. Your answers seem to indicate that you do have an open mind, so I appreciate the opportunity to explore that a bit.

As I understood it, the Spalding theory is that there is a missing manuscript, and THAT one is the source of the Book of Mormon, correct? Manuscript Story is the one with this introduction, but that is not the one proposed as the source, correct?

Correct. MSCC is simply the extant manuscript of Solomon Spalding--the same guy that the S/R theory claims wrote a now non-extant manuscript. When Spalding's friends and family read the Book of Mormon they claimed it strongly reminded them of Spalding's manuscript.

S/R says there was another manuscript. (And at least one of the witnesses tells us exactly that). S/R critics (or at least most of them) say that MSCC is the only manuscript Spalding ever wrote that could possibly be mistaken for the Book of Mormon.

Aside from that point, I think there are some things to keep in mind. One is that, as others have stated, it is possible to find parallels almost anywhere, and the parallels should be considered in context of the differences, as well.

Certainly valid points. My counter to that is, while it may be possible to find parallels almost anywhere if one puts in the effort, that simple reality does not mean that all parallels are meaningless or have been produced by coincidence. And while it's true that the differences should be evaluated, we can't simply state that because some differences exist there is therefore no connection. That would be rather silly, wouldn't it, since it would rule out any parallel that contains any sort of difference. In addition, I would also add that it is the similarities; their frequency, chronological sequence and complexity that should tell us the most about the relevance of any set of parallels, not the differences. Agreed?

A second point is that it's possible both stories have a source somewhere else - perhaps this idea, finding an ancient text hidden under a rock, was part of some cultural lore of the time.

Sure, but that admission would mean that Glenn's position would have to be untrue since he takes Joseph Smith at his word. I'm fine entertaining that notion, but again, my question is how do you explain the specific parallels I am asking about? Sure it's possible that both Smith and Spalding got them from someone else, but what evidence is there to support that idea? The fact remains that Smith's story parallels (the earlier) Spalding account with several unique elements, with a similar chronological sequence. How do we best explain that?

If you are not familiar with the specific set of parallels I am asking about, you can learn more about them here:
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap04.htm

Off the top of my head, I can't remember the name of that itinerant preacher (maybe Walters? I'll try to find it) who claimed to have translated an ancient document, but it's possible that he, or some other person, cooked up a similar story, which triggered the idea in both Spalding and Smith.

You're saying that Luman Walter may have influenced Solomon Spalding to write a discovery narrative prior to 1816? I doubt it, but I suppose it's possible. Let me know what eveidence you find to support that. And you're saying that this same fellow could have similarly influenced Joseph Smith? Possible. But what is the point of such speculation? Simply to argue that what appears to be direct parallels are really only indirect parallels? Again, possible, but what justification is there to complicate things? Do you have testimony from someone who was in a position to know something that both Spalding and Smith's discovery narratives were influenced by Walters? Or is it just a way to throw doubt on S/R?

Hyrum Smith and Solomon Spalding both attended classes at Dartmouth. (Albeit decades apart and with Spalding at Dartmouth and Hyrum at Moors Academy, on the same campus). I'm pretty sure they were both taught by one John Smith (which if my hunch is correct was a distant relative of Joseph Sr.) who taught a class on the possible history of the Indians. I think it is more likely that you will find common ground there, than through Luman Walter's influence on both Smith and Spalding. But, again, it's possible.

A third possibility is that Smith, as he was wont to do, just picked up ideas from different sources and patched them altogether, so maybe this idea did come from Spalding, although that does not mean he plagiarized the entire thing - just picked it for ideas.

Well now that would be a really amazing coincidence, don't you think? Consider this, beastie.... the allegations that something produced by Joseph Smith (the Book of Mormon) resembled the writing of a fellow named Solomon Spalding were first made in 1833. Joseph Smith's discovery narrative was not written until 1838. Solomon died in 1816 so his writings definitely came before either the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith's discovery narrative. In other words, the specific parallels I am asking you about did not even exist until Joseph composed his version 5 years AFTER the allegation of a connection between Spalding and Smith's writings were first made. And yet you're saying, well maybe Smith DID borrow Spalding's discovery narrative without plagiarizing the entire thing. Why would he do that? Why would he borrow a discovery narrative from the very guy people had claimed he borrowed from to produce the Book of Mormon in the first place? And even more intriguing: where would he get the material from to borrow in 1838?

Anyway, I certainly haven't studied this intensely enough to feel comfortable making such assertions, I'm just throwing out ideas.

Nothing wrong with that at all. That's exactly what I did that eventually led me to conclude in favor of S/R... and I still do.

I do think the Book of Mormon has a heck of a lot of Joseph Smith in it, and I agree with BH Roberts' conclusion that it was written by an immature mind.

It does have Joseph Smith in it. No one disputes that. But not on every page. There is a lot of stuff that seems to fit others better than Smith. I think Roberts made some good points, but he also had incomplete information. To say that the Book of Mormon was written by an immature mind, is a generalization. In general I agree, but again, not on every page. At the same time, some of Spalding's stuff (in MSCC) is pretty silly too. In fact, Spalding uses the very same silly strategies and far-fetched heroics that we find in certain portions of the Book of Mormon. In one set of parallels he not only uses the same quite ridiculous ambush strategy, he also has it occur in a similar setting (a river near a hill) with a similar outcome in basically the same sequence. How many coincidences are sufficient to establish a connection?

The S/R theory says that Spalding's ms went through editing, embellishment and redaction by at least Rigdon, Smith and possibly Cowdery before it was published as the Book of Mormon and, of course we know the first 116 pages were lost. The result--if S/R is correct--is that portions of the Book of Mormon might resemble Spalding's extant manuscript (which is not the same story as the Book of Mormon but may contain similar episodes and phraseology because it was written by the same ORIGINAL writer) but not the entire work.

That sounds more like Smith than Rigdon or Spalding. But I'm just thinking out loud. I really don't believe I will ever come to a firm conclusion on this question, I just revisit it now and then, and tend to change my mind now and then.

No problem with that. The thing that bugs me--if I let it--is when S/R critics attempt to attack S/R based not on what S/R actually postulates, but rather on their own over-generalizations. To say that Spalding is not the author of the Book of Mormon is virtually meaningless since no one claims he is. It's more complex than that, but that's the level it is often reduced to.

But the point here, is that a set of parallels exist. Their existence must be explained.

Ben's explanation basically boils down to coincidence.
Glenn's explanation, I think, is the same.
Apparently even Dan is forced to come to the same conclusion.

Look at the parallels--with your mind that's not made up--and tell me if you honestly think they are best explained by coincidence.

All the best.

[_Roger]

Dan:

Again, make an argument I can assess.

Have you taken a look at grammatical error distribution patterns across the entire Book of Mormon text?

[_GlennThigpen]

Ben's explanation basically boils down to coincidence.
Glenn's explanation, I think, is the same.
Apparently even Dan is forced to come to the same conclusion.

Look at the parallels--with your mind that's not made up--and tell me if you honestly think they are best explained by coincidence.

All the best.

Roger, Dale and MCB have been pulling parallels from many different texts to phrases and ideas in the Book of Mormon. They seem to be all over the place. The point that Ben tried to make to you is that you must construct some sort of baseline by which to judge the relevance of any parallels. MCB may be doing so in her yet to be published book, but thus far, in these discussions, only the parallels have been noted without any baseline or any method of showing pertinence except the "gut" feeling by some that they are too numerous to be coincience.

Have you taken a look at grammatical error distribution patterns across the entire Book of Mormon text?

Roger, in one post you noted how the grammatical correctness of Spalding's manuscript and how ungrammatical is the Book of Mormon. How grammatical is the works of Syndey Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery?

Unless Solomon went ungrammatical in the alleged second manuscript, the grammar problems in the Book of Mormon would seem to legislate againts any substantial direct contribution, which would disagree with many of the witnesses who said that the historical parts were the same without alteration, even parts verbatim.

Glenn