Roger,
This is a good example of why I asked beastie for her opinion--as someone who's mind is not already made up. Obviously your mind is already made up, so, exactly like the Mormons, you pick at and exaggerate the differences you see in the stories. Of course there are differences! What else would we expect? If Joseph Smith were to have copied the story verbatim we wouldn't be having this discussion. It would be game over. But Joseph Smith wasn't stupid enough to do that.
There are some things worth noting in your response, however. Even with your mind biased against any possible connection here (because to admit such a connection would radically affect what you've been writing for years), you still use the word "similar" eleven times (which, out of 21 is a majority) you say "yes" once, "close" once and "A stretch" once. You reject only 7 parallels (at least four of which you should not have) and despite that your assessment is "not exactly a compelling list. Most are of no consequence."
Well, my bias didn’t prevent me from agreeing to some similarity. I pointed out both similarity and differences. The list is padded with things that are not similar or of no consequence—all of which is intended to make it seem for formidable. In reality, the similarities are not that impressive and result from the demands of subject matter chosen by separate authors. I tried to show that the choices Joseph Smith made came out of his own treasure-seeking experiences. I seriously doubt Spalding would have thought to use Egyptian for a Jewish record. As I said, the similarities are due to the demands of the situation, which by its nature limits the range of choices. Yet, significant differences arise out of differences in backgrounds of the authors.
Not surprisingly your conclusion is completely consistent with your bias. It will be interesting to see what beastie has to say.
Bias doesn’t matter—only good argument.
by the way, how open is your mind, Roger?
The four parallels you reject which you should not have are:
Of course this is a parallel. A stone conceals something underneath in both accounts.
The cover stone is a different shape. I know, you think Joseph Smith changed that detail to be tricky. Well, as I said, what we are talking about is both stories have a stone vault of some kind—not the same kind. You can divide it up into smaller units to make it seem more similar, but its really one unit. Taken as a whole, it’s not remarkable that a stone vault would have a covering stone—even if everything about the two vaults is completely different. These stone vaults were not unique to either writer, as I mentioned. So why do you make a connection between Spalding and Joseph Smith on this point?
Highlighting the differences in the face of glaring similarities is simply not valid. As I mentioned we EXPECT differences because Joseph Smith is smart enough not to copy verbatim.
There are no glaring similarities. Spalding’s parchments were in a buried box made of fired clay is not similar to Joseph Smith’s story. Spalding’s character lifts the large flat stone, jumps into a large stone lined vault, removes a stone slab door, enters a cavern, and discovers the clay box buried in the floor. The demands of the story required the records be preserved in some manner. Joseph Smith’s vault is closer to the burial vaults found in some mounds, but Spalding’s is more imaginative. Again, it’s not a separate item from the cover stone. Breaking them into smaller units is an effort to make it more similar and distract from differences. The lid described above isn’t covering the box that contains the records.
Beastie: 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.
Roger: This is reasonable. This is what we would expect as opposed to a verbatim copy. The box is a valid parallel.
Of course, I don’t agree with Beastie, who was just throwing it out as a third possibility. It’s one among other possibilities. The box is a small part of the vault and can’t be considered in isolation. The demands of the story required that the record or records be preserved leave few choices.
This is where your logic really starts to get ridiculous. You reject the obvious parallel that both stories contain the discovery of written accounts in an ancient language that needed to be translated into English, by saying that "Spalding would not have chosen Egyptian because he wouldn’t be able to translate the record." So what? It doesn't matter what you think Spalding would or would not have chosen. The fact is the two accounts contain a parallel in that both stories contain the discovery of written accounts in an ancient language that needed to be translated into English. The parallel is quite valid.
It doesn’t matter what I think Spalding would or would not have chosen, but it matters what you think Joseph Smith would change or not change? When it comes to logic Roger, I’m two steps ahead of you—mostly because you have said you don’t value logic. Again, the subject matter—solving the mystery of the Mound Builders—is going to require a record survive, and unless both authors are dumb enough to find a record written in English, it’s going to required translation. That’s where such a simple parallel breaks down. In fact, it not only breaks down but it leads you into a serious problem. Both Nephi’s record and Mormon’s is written in Egyptian—even the brass plates required knowledge in Egyptian to read. If Spalding had Egyptian in his story, how would he have proposed to translate them? Joseph Smith needed his seer stone, what would Spalding use? That’s why he chose Latin. That’s a fatal problem for your theory.
This is utterly ridiculous. I expect better even from hopelessly biased LDS. To ignore the obvious parallel that a translation was needed--just like Dale says--and argue for no parallel because "Joseph Smith’s use of a stone to translate comes from his treasure-seeking world, not Spalding. It was later called a Urim and Thummim to disguise its magic origins. Spalding translated a dead but known language through learning." --doesn't even make sense. The parallel is quite valid.
It makes sense, Roger, you are just having difficulty getting your mind around it. Dale’s parallel was that both records needed translation. True, but not significant since both authors had no other choice. It would be significant if there were a variety of things to choose from. The difference in translation method came from each author’s background—Spalding his learning, and Joseph Smith his folk-magic culture.
So, in the end, you acknowledge 11 similarities, admit that one is "close," characterize another as "yes," label one "A stretch" and fallaciously reject 4. That's a grand total of 18 valid parallels with only 3 being questionable--and I'm sure Dale could adequately defend those, but, regardless there is no need to. 18 valid points of similarity in two fairly short, allegedly unconnected accounts SHOULD be enough for us to rule out coincidence.
As I made clear, number doesn’t matter—it’s quality. The similarities I have explained as due to the demands of the story, which can lead to similar solutions because choices are limited.
But there is one more important dimension here that is being overlooked and that is the sequence of events is also similar. As I stated, both men 1. go for a walk near their homes while pondering the ancients 2. come across a curious stone 3. use a lever to dislodge it 4. find something other than dirt underneath 5. probe further to discover ancient manuscripts 6. discover that the manuscripts are not in English and need to be translated 7. rather than have someone else translate it, they do it themselves 8. discover that the content contains a history of the former inhabitants of this continent that turns out to be 9. multiple histories and complex compilations and abridgments --- all of this in the same sequential order.
This is a logical order that can’t be avoided even if one tried. It is temporally bound. Dales’ parallel of walking is trite. Nevertheless, Joseph Smith wasn’t just walking and happened upon the rock. He claimed a spirit in a dream told him about it. Nothing aroused attention to the rounding stone on the hill; indeed, money diggers had been digging on the hill previously without disturbing the stone. Joseph Smith used a leaver, but what else could he do? The vault and manner of concealment is entirely different. The records are different. They are written in different languages. The histories are different. They translate by different means. The assigned origin of the Indians is different, and Joseph Smith knows the origin before translating. Complexity of Joseph Smith’s book largely due to loss of 116-pages. There is no sequential order for 8-9, and the first part can’t be avoided.
So we not only have many striking similarities, we also find them coming in the same sequence. And all of this, not from some obscure writer we found using a computer search for similar phrases and themes, but because credible witnesses had ALREADY told us point blank there IS a connection BEFORE THESE PARALLELS EVEN EXISTED.
This is undoubtedly part of the similarities that led them to make the connection in the first place. So discovering these similarities later is not surprising—but that isn’t proof of plagiarism. It only proves that Spalding and Joseph Smith had chosen similar topics to write about.