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

[_MCB]

I believe he has access to those results. I wonder if he is looking for unbiased replication form a Smith-alone proponent. Subject-verb disagreement, for example, is plentiful throughout, and is probably an artifact of Smith's dictation (probably from memory).

[_Roger]

Dan:

If you are so sure of the results, how can you pass up such an opportunity?

Opportunity for what? As I think I stated, it's not my research and it's preliminary. I am not "so sure" of the results at this point but on the other hand, so far what I have seen certainly seems to support an S/R framework. But I'm not interested in this topic to try to prove anything to anyone. I'm already comfortable with what I believe, but if it turns out to be wrong, no big deal.

What hurt would it do for you to look into it? I would think that error distribution would be a static thing and therefore fairly objective. If the whole thing was created in the brain of and dictated by Joseph Smith, shouldn't we expect fairly consistent error distribution across the entire text? If the error distribution is not consistent, shouldn't that require an explanation?

Who knows, maybe what I have seen is not the whole story. Maybe there are errors that can be found at a consistent frequency throughout the entire text. I don't know, I suspect not.

MCB wrote:

I believe he has access to those results. I wonder if he is looking for unbiased replication form a Smith-alone proponent. Subject-verb disagreement, for example, is plentiful throughout, and is probably an artifact of Smith's dictation (probably from memory).

If I were looking for unbiased replication I wouldn't be asking Dan to look into it. Dan is one better. He's biased against it. So if he replicates the results, then we would have something.

[_Dan Vogel]

There are a lot of things worth commenting on in your previous post, Dan, but I don't have time at present. This is too glaring to put off until later:

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.

You fail to grasp the implication of what you are suggesting. These parallels CANNOT be "part of the similarities that led them to make the connection in the first place" because they DID NOT EXIST until 5 years AFTER they made the connection. Let that sink in.

Roger,

Do you realize what you are saying? First of all, the 1838 history isn’t the first published account. Oliver Cowdery with Joseph Smith’s help published an account in 1834-35 in the Messenger and Advocate. Second, the story existed orally since 1823, according to Lucy Smith. Really, do you think people believed the Book of Mormon and joined the church without knowing the background story of the book’s discovery? You think the missionaries just handed the Book of Mormon to prospective converts without telling them where it came from? This story was common knowledge repeated by missionaries and newspapers.

Geauga Gazette, ca. 23 Nov. 1830. Reporting what the first missionaries taught in northern Ohio: “Smith repaired to the spot, and on opening the ground discovered an oblong stone box tightly closed with cement …” (EMD 3:275-76).

Nancy Towle, Oct. 1831. Visited Kirtland and learned Joseph Smith’s story: “He accordingly went; and was directed by the angel to a certain spot of ground, where was deposited a ‘Box,’ and in that box contained ‘Plates,’ which resembled gold …” (EMD 1:204).

=Joseph Smith 1832 History. His first formal attempt to put his story in writing didn’t describe the vault, but mentions his dream and going “to the place and found where the plates was deposited”

Willard Chase Statement, 1833. Remembered being told in 1827 that the plates were found in “a stone box” with a “top stone” and in the bottom of the box “something like a toad” that struck him (Howe, 242).

Benjamin Saunders Interview, 1884. Said he remembered the same story as Chase being told about the same time (EMD 2:137).

[_Dan Vogel]

I believe he has access to those results. I wonder if he is looking for unbiased replication form a Smith-alone proponent. Subject-verb disagreement, for example, is plentiful throughout, and is probably an artifact of Smith's dictation (probably from memory).

One way to do it is to use the Tanner's 4,000 changes in the Book of Mormon. Most of the changes were grammatical and evenly distributed. But the same problems exist in the revelations.

[_Uncle Dale]

In other words, once they discovered the manuscript, prefaced by the discovery account, and recovered it from Hurlbut, they published it as belonging with the Book of Mormon.

Possibly so -- but, if so, I do not think we can prove it -- nor
do I think that such literary resemblances tell us much that is
useful in our understanding Mormon origins.

To me, the most that I would take away from such a latter day
plagiarism is a confirmation of Smith's heaven-daring audacity.

Then again, I've spent the better part of my life in company
with Saints who truly believe that Joseph Smith was the most
humble and honest man to ever walk the earth, save for
Mary's son as the lone exception.

So -- why argue over such stuff? It's best relegated to the
status of a historical oddity -- the tail end of a footnote.

Expanding upon the Oliver Cowdery language study I've
reported on in various pages of this current thread
I've decided to map Rigdon's, Spalding's and Cowdery's vocabulary
across the entire Book of Mormon, by producing colorized
mark-ups of the full 1830 text for each of the three writers.

It will be a time consuming task, and will not be finished any
time soon. But the results of the colorized mark-ups can then
be rendered as shared vocabulary frequency illustrations in
the form of 239-chapter bar charts, etc.

People have told me in the past that they cannot understand
my previous charts: so I'll keep the outcomes of this new project
very simple. In each of the three extended sets of bar charts,
the ratio of shared words for the respective author-candidate
will be expressed as 239 contiguous bars, with values ranging
from about 60% overlap (the lowest I've so far discovered)
up to 100% (which is very near a few instances I've cited
here in the past).

Then, at a glance, the viewer can see which parts of the
Book of Mormon most resemble language used by Spalding,
Rigdon and Cowdery -- and what those distributions look
like, when presented one-above-another.

Hopefully none of our LDS opponents will object too much.
And hopefully somebody else will also produce a chart for Smith.

UD

[_marg]

Dan, In order to reply to your previous post, it requires going back to follow the discussion. So I'll only address a portion of your post at this point..


Post reference (Apr 26 5:30 p.m).:link

"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.

Post reference [Apr 26 7:23 p.m]: link

"This is an assumption on your part Dan that Smith believed what he was writing.

Post reference Apr 27, 6:40 a.m. link

Of course, you can always try reading Joseph Smith’s mind and say he wasn’t sincere or didn’t believe what he was saying or writing. My point was that the Book of Mormon wasn’t intended as a novel, which it would be if Spalding wrote it. The Book of Mormon is didactic—designed to promote religious values. Pointing to sins and manipulation doesn’t negate religious sincerity. Indeed, my thesis is that he used deception and manipulation to promote religion. That’s the moral dilemma he faced. Promoting good through these things. Part of Joseph Smith’s reasoning is revealed in Moroni 7:“Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God … wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God” (7:12-13).

Dan, the burden of proof is on you to show that Smith was sincere and believed what he wrote..that's because Smith makes extraordinary claims and claims which are unwarranted such as the as the Book of Mormon is a literal history. Think of it this way...if someone is not delusional, in good mental health and they claim they were visited by aliens and had a tour of their space ship..does the presumption rest with them they are telling the truth or are sincere? And if you were to argue on their behalf should I accept that you hold the presumption they are sincere?

So I think we both agree that the Book of Mormon was presented to the public with claims knowingly completely untrue, with extraordinary claims as well. The discovery narrative, Smith described he would have known full well didn’t occur. He would have known full well there were no brass plates and he that had no translation capabilities. So your argument that we should all presume Smith was sincere because he was writing a scriptural book doesn’t hold as valid, when he obviously demonstrated insincerity..and I don't care what his motives are, that's irrelevant.

The burden of proof is on you to show he was sincere in what he wrote in the Book of Mormon (assuming your position he's the sole author. The presumption given the evidence is that he wasn’t sincere. I listed 2 examples in my previous post ..the polygamy as he himself practiced it, and his treasure seeking as examples to show insincerity of his part, not to show immorality, But there are many other examples, his story of Zelph, The Book of Abraham.

So I’m not trying to read his mind which you appear to be doing and giving him a pass because he's claiming to be a religious prophet. I’m going by his behavior to determine likelihood of sincerity. You start off with an unwarranted assumption that “he believed what he wrote in the Book of Mormon” but you have no logical basis for that to be the case, simply because that's what you believe and you think you can read his mind, or perhaps you think when it comes to religion those who claim to be religious are sincere in their beliefs and are given a pass to have their claims and sincerity in beliefs critically evaluated.

As far as your comment that the Book of Mormon was designed to promote religious values, and so that was Smith's motivation, well it really doesn’t promote very much other than encouragement to hold a belief that the Christian God exists and Jesus is his son…and if one believes then one will be rewarded by a God and if one doesn't, they will be punished. So if you consider that a value worthwhile, yes it promotes that. I don't think one can assume Smith thought that as being a "good" value he was promoting if he didn't believe in a the Christian God which I think is a high probability... given his behavior, and I'll explain what I mean by that below.

So the Book of Mormon is very much like a novel.

Joseph Smith had an elaborate system of justifying religious deception, or anything he wanted. Joseph Smith wasn’t the only one who believed in concubinage and “spiritual wifery”—many religious people did, which is why I directed you to that footnote in my book. You might consider the possibility that he didn’t see such behavior as sinful, and that pointing to such behavior isn’t the slam dunk you think it is. We can argue endlessly about his sincerity, but I’ll settle for an acknowledgement that the Book of Mormon is a pious fraud, whether or not Joseph Smith was.

I don’t believe I brought up polygamy for purposes of judgment( I can argue on the immorality of Smith's polygamy and which he encouraged of others but that's another issue). Rather my point was he'd have known no God was involved and that indicates his ability to use religion to deceive, as I explained above. The things he did such as claiming the Book of Mormon as true history, claiming to translate plates,claiming to find plates in a hill, etc etc…all indicate he had no qualms lying..let's call a spade a spade ok? I know I'm probably hurting Dan. P's feelings..but religion shouldn't get a pass from critical evaluation just because those affiliated think it should. by the way It doesn't matter to me if Smith was justified or thought he was justified...that's irrelevant. He either was deceptive or he wasn't...and for this discussion that's not a matter of moral judgement.

As far as pious fraud.. I think the person who initiated the endeavor of setting up this religion was probability a pious fraud and they used the Book of Mormon to provide the religion's own scriptural book knowing that's a vital element for a successful religion. So the writer/writers do not need to believe in the contents of the Book of Mormon as being literally true or even the contents being a reflection of their lives..as necessary for a scriptural book upon which to found a religion..contrary to your assumption.

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.

I would say that even if that is true, it doesn’t negate a belief that he was doing good. It’s a patronizing attitude, to be sure, and he probably believed he deserved the things he sought as rewards for helping us. The world needed his leadership, even if he had to do it through deception.

Dan you are the one presuming he thought he was doing good and presuming he thought he was justified in whatever rewards he sought. You make many presumptions in your analysis of Smith without good warrants. It's as if you think you enjoy the presumption that the Book of Mormon was written by Smith, and that he was sincere. You do not enjoy those presumptions. The burden is not on others to disprove you and if they can't then your position holds. Because of all the extraordinary claims involved and simply the nature of religious claims...the burden is on you to warrant your assumptions of sincerity. You don't logically start off with a free ticket on this, that you don't have to warrant your assumptions.

The presumption rests that if he's not delusional, he would have known no God commanded him to have sex with other men’s wives or daughters nor helped him translate plates, nor no angel brought him any plates. And being he's the sole author according to you, then he'd also know he's fabricating Jesus going to America. That being the case, he obviously had no fear of a real Christian God existing and that God's retribution for hijacking the real Jesus from the Bible for his stories. And keep in mind Dan, I'm not a Christan, have never been, this is not a judgment that I'm making. I'm fully aware Christianity did the same to the Hebrew Bible and Gnostic and pagan religions.

(I'll try to continue with the rest of your post, if I can find the previous one's it relates to)

[_Roger]

Dan wrote:

Roger,

Do you realize what you are saying? First of all, the 1838 history isn’t the first published account. Oliver Cowdery with Joseph Smith’s help published an account in 1834-35 in the Messenger and Advocate.

Which doesn't give any details except:

He then proceeded and gave a general account of the promises made to the fathers, and also gave a history of the aborigines of this country, and said they were literal descendants of Abraham. He represented them as once being an enlightened and intelligent people, possessing a cerrect [correct] knowledge of the gospel, and the plan of restoration and redemption. He said this history was written and deposited not far from that place, and that it was our brother's privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, to obtain, and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record.

*snip*

While describing the place where the record was deposited, he gave a minute relation of it, and the vision of his mind being opened at the same time, he was permitted to view it critically; and previously being acquainted with the place, he was able to follow the direction of the vision, afterward, according to the voice of the angel, and obtain the book.

First, this was published in 1835, a full year after the Hurlbut hoopla and the publication of Howe's book.

Second there are not sufficient details here from which to construct the parallels we are discussing.

Second, the story existed orally since 1823, according to Lucy Smith.

With all due respect, I'll go by the written accounts and take what Lucy says with a grain of salt.

Really, do you think people believed the Book of Mormon and joined the church without knowing the background story of the book’s discovery?

This is a silly question. You know as well as I do the changing accounts of the first vision, which is what would have been emphasized (then as now). Missionaries (then as now) use whatever version of the First vision account is most current and/or best serves their purpose. Did God the father appear? or Jesus or both? Was the conversation about Joseph's sins being forgiven or which church to join?

You have no evidence to show what version was being used by the missionaries prior to 1833 and/or what details (if any beyond the generic "plates were discovered") of the discovery account was being incorporated into it, or for that matter what version (if any) the Conneaut witnesses were exposed to and what details that may or may not have included.

You think the missionaries just handed the Book of Mormon to prospective converts without telling them where it came from? This story was common knowledge repeated by missionaries and newspapers.

Geauga Gazette, ca. 23 Nov. 1830. Reporting what the first missionaries taught in northern Ohio: “Smith repaired to the spot, and on opening the ground discovered an oblong stone box tightly closed with cement …” (EMD 3:275-76).

Nancy Towle, Oct. 1831. Visited Kirtland and learned Joseph Smith’s story: “He accordingly went; and was directed by the angel to a certain spot of ground, where was deposited a ‘Box,’ and in that box contained ‘Plates,’ which resembled gold …” (EMD 1:204).

=Joseph Smith 1832 History. His first formal attempt to put his story in writing didn’t describe the vault, but mentions his dream and going “to the place and found where the plates was deposited”

Aside from the stone box, none of this contains the details included in the parallels we're discussing. Hence, Spalding's discovery narrative was not retained in 1834 by either Hurlbut or Howe as evidence of a possible connection.

Willard Chase Statement, 1833. Remembered being told in 1827 that the plates were found in “a stone box” with a “top stone” and in the bottom of the box “something like a toad” that struck him (Howe, 242).

Benjamin Saunders Interview, 1884. Said he remembered the same story as Chase being told about the same time (EMD 2:137).

The Chase statement comes from Howe's book and was obtained by Hurlbut! Obviously neither Howe nor Hurlbut could see enough points of similarity at that point to make a connection! Your suggestion was that:

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.

You'd love to make that stick, but it doesn't. The first time all the elements appear in print with all the similarities intact and in sequence is 1838, well after the Hurlbut hullabaloo in late 1833 and early 1834.

Whether Joseph Smith was aware of Spalding's discovery narrative prior to 1834 and made selective use of it in his oral accounts before 1838 is neither clear nor the important question. Your allegation is that the points of similarity caused the witnesses to (falsely) associate the writings of Spalding with the writings of Smith and that allegation simply does not work. If that allegation was true then MSCC could have easily been used to make that argument as early as 1834. It wasn't. Virtually none of the witnesses make an issue out of any similarity between the way in which both accounts were discovered. They claim that the content, style and the names--minus the religious material--in the Book of Mormon is what reminded them of Spalding's manuscript.

So contrary to your assertion, you can't claim that the clear parallels we've been discussing were part of the reason they made the connection in the first place. On the contrary, they were completely unaware of those parallels--exactly as we would expect since they were not put in print until 1838.

The fact is you are stuck with coincidence and coincidence doesn't cut it.

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.

I don't think you're the best person to be speaking to Dale's intent. Regardless, intent is not the issue. I am willing to exclude three of the seven you reject, which leaves us with 18.

In reality, the similarities are not that impressive and result from the demands of subject matter chosen by separate authors.

In reality, the similarities are quite impressive. Find another unrelated account written prior to 1830 with the same number, quality and sequence of parallels to Smith's account. When you can do that, then you can claim these are not that impressive.

I tried to show that the choices Joseph Smith made came out of his own treasure-seeking experiences.

Irrelevant. You're using your premise as a basis.

I seriously doubt Spalding would have thought to use Egyptian for a Jewish record.

Doesn't matter. Smith could have changed that. However, Spalding does make mention of Egyptian and Chaldean writing in MSCC.

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.

The differences don't prove anything. Smith (or Cowdery) was the final redactor.

Bias doesn’t matter—only good argument.

by the way, how open is your mind, Roger?

My mind is quite open. Like I said, if I am wrong, it's no big deal. I just don't think I'm wrong.

The cover stone is a different shape. I know, you think Joseph Smith changed that detail to be tricky.

Why wouldn't he? What's to prevent him? Heck, maybe he reinacted Spalding's story to make it his own.

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?

It's like you can't see there's two sports cars in front of you because one is a '69 Corvette and the other is a '72 Porche. I say, look Dan, they are both sports cars built for speed and you say but you're wrong because one is a red convertible and the other is a blue hard-top.

The fact of the matter, as I already explained, is that a parallel is a parallel. You can't simply exclude it because it doesn't meet your ridiculous all-points-must-match-standard. The only way to meet that standard is a verbatim copy and I've already pointed out that Joseph Smith wasn't that stupid. He (or someone) even made a few changes to the Bible, but we still agree he (or someone) used it.

So, true, it may not be remarkable that a stone vault would have a covering stone. It may not be remarkable that two sports cars are parked in your driveway. But a covering stone is still a covering stone, a sports car is a sports car and a parallel is a parallel... whether Dan finds it remarkable or not.

There are no glaring similarities.

Oh, but there are, starting with a lever and followed by the very discovery of ancient, mysterious manuscripts written in an ancient language that needed to be translated followed by the tremendous fortune that the discoverer was not merely some kid playing but a man with the ability (whether learned or God-given) to do the translation himself, followed by the similar themes of what came forth from the translation.

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.

But Roger, this sports car has AC while the other one does not. This one has power brakes and the other one doesn't. This one has power windows and the other one doesn't. It's still a sports car, Dan.

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.

Let's be clear. We all agree that Beastie was only throwing this out as a third possibility. She also stated that she leans toward your position. So I'm not suggesting that Beastie agrees with me or my position. The fact of the matter remains that an outside observer with an open mind can at least agree that it IS A POSSIBILITY 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."

The point I was making is that that is a reasonable position. It is unreasonable to look at the parallels and nit-pick at the differences in an effort to downplay or poopoo them away as though they really aren't impressive. They are impressive and, again, until you can provide us with an unrelated story from the same time frame with the same number and quality and sequence of parallels to Smith's account as Spalding's contains, I'm simply not buying your assessment that they aren't that compelling.

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.

I never said I don't value logic. That's you, twisting again. What I don't value is your attempts at one-upsmanship by labelling everything I say as some violation of a logical fallacy while finding some convenient loophole for yourself.

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.

Nonsense. Spalding's account was fiction. He had multiple choices. He could have claimed some fictitious means of translating. He could have claimed to have taken it to the learned. He could have claimed to have figured out how to translate Egyptian. Heck, Spalding even mentions seer stones in MSCC so he could have claimed to know how to use them to translate just like Joseph Smith. But it's still more likely that Smith is the one who came up with reformed Egyptian. Smith is the final redactor.

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.

I noted the important part... that you now concede that a parallel (which you previously labelled "no parallel") is indeed a parallel. Now your argument is that its not a significant parallel. That's a matter of opinion. There are, in fact, a variety of things to choose from. Either ms could have been allegedly written in any number of Native American dialects, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and would have still needed translation. The finder in either case, would not have had to have been able to translate the language--unless he wants to pull off a fraud without assistance. But if others were involved having someone else do the translation would have lent more credibility to the fraud. Regardless, Spalding's account was produced well before Smith's. We both agree that Smith never actually translated anything. Therefore his account of the need for translation is a fabrication and that fabrication parallels Spalding's fiction.

If there truly is no other choice, as you are claiming, then it should be a simple matter to find another account with the same parallels--since anyone writing on the subject would have had no other choice but to include the same parallels in his account. By that logic any discovery narrative of that time on the subject of finding a lost manuscript must read nearly identical to these two accounts, since there's no other choices.

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.

Number does matter. And so does sequence. But I'm open-minded. Demonstrate that you are right by finding another story from the same time frame with the same number (and quality) of parallels to Smith's account that come in the same sequence. Good luck.

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?

Since he was part of a company of treasure hunters, one might expect him to run home and get his trusty shovel or a pick axe, or since he'd seen it all in vision, to have simply brought one with him. Instead, just like Spalding before him, he conveniently finds a lever just lying around!

The vault and manner of concealment is entirely different.

Wait a minute... I thought the choices were limited?! How can it be that 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 the differences are significant but the similarities can't be avoided! The scary thing is I'm beginning to see how Dan's mind works.

The fact of the matter is that there are at least 18 points of similarity between Spalding's discovery narrative and Smith's. Those 18 points come in the same logical, sequential order in both accounts and coincidence is a lousy way of explaining them. The one thing you've established with all of the above is that you don't like the resulting predicament.

[Guest]

Roger:

Dan is one better. He's biased against it. So if he replicates the results, then we would have something.

Haven't you noticed my technique with Dan? Your statement is more accurate, however. Yes, Dan, the changes are a beginning. Anyone trying to do it has to use the 1830.

Code: Select all

Aside from the stone box, none of this contains the details included in the parallels we're discussing. Hence, Spalding's discovery narrative was not retained in 1834 by either Hurlbut or Howe as evidence of a possible connection. 

Even though they did not have a paper copy, oral reports firmed up their memories of the introduction to the 116 pages and/or Manuscript Found (and Lost).

ETA. Dan, I did not start out as a S/R advocate. I started out asking the question "What were the sources that Joseph Smith & Co. used in composing the Book of Mormon?" I only converted to S/R when I saw the pattern of richness of sources coinciding with the chapters which are Spalding-like.



However, enough of that. Like Dale, I have to get back to tedious details. Maybe I can stay away from the board all day. LOL

[_GlennThigpen]

Then you lack authority to criticize my I know it when I see it baseline. Your baseline, as well as Dan's, seems to be: I can still reject it even when it's placed in front of me.

Actually, Dan and I, along with Ben and others have been trying to determine what normally accepted methods you have used to show that your parallels are significant. If you are only trying to convince those that are already convinced, you don't even have to try. But if you wish to convince anyone else, you have to provide a little more in the way of literary and scisntific processes.

Based upon what science does the S/R theory predict an underlying Spalding text?

LOL. Based on what science does the Official story predict reformed Egyptian will ever be deciphered?

This is a nonsense question Glenn. The S/R theory predicts an underlying Spalding text because the witnesses tell us they note similarities between the Book of Mormon and a Spalding manuscript they claim to have been exposed to. This is not rocket science, nor does it have to be.

Based upon statements such as this one from John Miller, it would seem that the only text that is not Solomon's is the religious material.

I have recently examined the Book of Mormon, and find in it the writings of Solomon Spalding, from beginning to end, but mixed up with scripture and other religious matter, which I did not meet with in the "Manuscript Found." Many of the passages in the Mormon Book are verbatim from Spalding, and others in part.

No, that's simply the box you want to force S/R into because it makes defending your own theory easier. From beginning to end does not equate to a verbatim copy from beginning to end. And as Dan has been quick to point out there is religious material on virtually every page. Miller never says what you wish he did.

I am not forcing the S/R theory into any other box. There is no box that will contain the S/R theory because it is free wheeling and undefined. The proponents will reduce and transform any statment by the witnesses into something that will fit their paradigm, even if it flies in the face of what is actually known, as in the infamous lost tribes.

Many of the witnesses noted that the Book of Mormon resembled Solomon's alleged second manuscript very closely, with many passages verbatim (John Miller and Aaron Wright). That is not my bos, but the box that the witnesses proscribed. The witnesses generally agreed that there was no religious material introduced in Solomon's story. And it has been noted that religious material is on just about every page of the Book of Mormon.

My question is not a nonsense question. It is germane to the discussion. It truly is not rocket science, but literay science. And the question is, just how does the S/R theory identify that which is supposed to be Solomon's historical input from the religious material that has supposedly been integrated into the tale? What portions of the text have actually been attributed to Solomon?
How are the grammatical error patterns developed with that in mind?

Glenn

[_Roger]

Glenn:

And the question is, just how does the S/R theory identify that which is supposed to be Solomon's historical input from the religious material that has supposedly been integrated into the tale? What portions of the text have actually been attributed to Solomon?
How are the grammatical error patterns developed with that in mind?

Dale has been attempting to separate Spalding out of the mix for years and has narrowed the text down to likely Spalding sections. Jockers results largely concur with Dale. Obviously we don't have the ability to be precise, but I think there are some agreed upon areas where we can say of all the possible chunks, these sound most Spaldingish. I'm pretty sure Dale has even mentioned some back a few chapters on this thread. If I remember correctly, he's also identified some Cowderyish sections as well.

Grammatical error patterns aren't developed. They're observed. In general, the patterns I have seen follow a similar pattern to the wherefore/therefore shift pattern. Of course Smith-alone proponents argue that for some unknown reason, at some point in his dictation Joseph decided to switch from therefore to wherefore. But how do we explain a noticeable drop in his grammatical ability at about the same time?