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

[_Roger]

marg:

This is interesting. We all know that Smith can't dictate at will contents of books he's unfamiliar with unless there is a trick going on. It would appear in this case that the book was Smith's and he likely prepared himself for this show by memorizing a page in advance..for the sole purpose of such a show. Had Stowel picked his own book and asked Smith to do the same thing, I'm sure the outcome would have been different.

Maybe that's what made Stowell think it was palpable. Maybe he said, wow, Joe, nice trick, now can you read this one? Who knows? That's the problem, we simply don't have enough information. I really wish Stowell would have elaborated.

But what is interesting is Smith showing his propensity to perform tricks. He's not simply claiming to translate with God's help, words which appear on a stone, he's performing a trick, trying to show that he can dictate any book without looking at it by using his stone.

Correct. Joseph Smith was obviously a trickster. And he'd been honing the craft since his adolescent days. The religious stuff came later. But what the Stowell testimony reveals is that Smith had started attempting to fool people with regard to reading books through a seer stone as early as 1826, two years before Book of Mormon translation even started.

So this indicates Smith's propensity and interest in preparing in advance for a trick to perform. Here he is transferring the treasure seeking trickery to books.

Good points.

And why would he be thinking along those lines? Because he's likely already been thinking along those lines with the Book of Mormon.

Well that is a good question. The timing of all this. The 1826 thing happened in the spring/early summer, if I remember correctly. The most likely time for Smith to meet Rigdon is in the weeks following the 1826 trial. But I suppose if we were to view the book trick as a possible clue, it might suggest they had met before summer, 1826.

It might be worth looking into a possible meeting of Smith & Rigdon in late 1825 or early '26. I wonder if Rigdon ever preached in Chenango or Broome counties during that time? Maybe Dale can enlighten us on Rigdon's whereabouts at that point.

The majority of the Book of Mormon would have been done by simply reading from a preprepared manuscript with the scribe Cowdery and whoever else as scribe he spent a good deal of time with ..and they'd by in on the process of knowing a manuscript was being used. But for some minor scribes a prepared in advance trick could easily be planned. Memorize a page or 2..and use that for show purposes..those same memorized pages could be used a number of times if necessary for show. And of course he can also always wing it temporarily.

What has always struck me about the Badger's Tavern account is this:

...and peek into his hat and call out a word to Cowdery, who sat at the same table and wrote it down.

The way Hine describes this, one word at a time, sounds painfully slow. On the other hand, with theatrics, the act could be impressive... as though he's struggling to read the words as they appear. This is the impression I get from Smith's reading ability... that he would likely have been a slow reader.

But if Hine's account has any basis in reality, it shows that at least the show part was being performed for public consumption--exactly my earlier point to Dan! On the one hand we have Dan claiming poor Joe needed privacy from curiosity seekers and on the other hand, according to Hine, we have Oliver and Jo tag-teaming at the local watering hole in an effort to generate curiosity (that was apparently working!) No doubt Dan simply rejects Hine's testimony out of hand since it doesn't mesh very neatly with his S/A paradigm.

Another possible solution to the trick is simply two copies of the same book--and Cowdery was a book peddler for a while. From what I remember at least some of these seer stones had holes in them. So if Joseph can look though the hole and point it at a concealed copy of the same book, then he can see the same words. Even better with Cowdery working as an assistant.

The point is some sort of deception was being employed. How good of a magician Smith was is not clear.

If Smith is only into dictating the Book of Mormon from his creative mind, then why is he into performing tricks of dictating books which have nothing to do with his claims to what is happening with the Book of Mormon and divine involvement?

The parlor tricks seem to have been done early on. Joseph himself admitted to "folly" in his youth. But it definitely looks like he progressed from alleging he sees articles in the stone to alleging he can read words in the stone. I think the early LDS mindset was to think of Smith's gift for seeing in a stone as a talent that could be used for good or evil. So God took the talent and used it for good--to translate the Book of Mormon.

But, in reality, I think the book reading stone trick probably emerged out of a response to a skeptic to prove he could really see things in the stone.

[_GlennThigpen]

I will get back to you on that discussion of the lost tribes/ad hoc fallacy, but it recently occurred to me one reason you view this lost tribes business differently than me. It seems to me you think everybody back then bought into the lost tribe myth. I don't think that's the case. For example that Morse's geography which Abner Jackson said influenced Spalding ..that didn't say that the American indians were likely from the lost tribes/middle east, it said they were Asian who came over the Bering Straight. I don't think any biblical skeptic would buy into the lost tribe myth or truly think the American indians were from the Middle East..why should they. I've always taken it for granted in our discussion (that is it never occurred to me otherwise) that Spalding didn't actually think the American Indians were middle eastern descent from the lost tribes. He knew he was writing a fictional account and so he only used the lost tribes ..because the exile of Northern Israelites was historically accepted and he could place the ancestry of American Indians into ancient times, and it would give them a historically accepted particular place, time and event to connect to. I think it's possible that some of the people he discussed the lost tribe concept with relating to the Am. Indians may have thought he truly believed what he was writing...but I doubt very much that he did believe, he was making it up.

Anyhow that's just a thought that occurred to me recently why we have a different perception.

We have different perceptions because you are looking everywhere but at the statements of the witnesses and what the prevailing ideas were of the time. You may not believe that everyone around that time had different ideas, but those beliefs do not comport with the ideas that the witnesses brought forth. That is the evidence that we have. It does not matter what Solomon really thought privately. It was the public persona that he presented that the witness are reporting on. I have seen nothing from any of those witnesses that Solomon publicly or privately communicated anything else.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn:

Come on Glenn. You really don't get it? Why does a particular error pattern--a redundant "that"--have a high frequency of occurrence at the beginning of the Book of Mormon and at the end, but not in the middle? Just look at the chart. It's pretty striking! And why would that pattern follow the same pattern as the wherefore/therefore shift? Just look at the chart! There has to be an explanation for it. If I remember correctly without checking, Dan said something like "writer's preference" or some such thing. In other words--unless I'm totally misunderstanding Dan's extremely limited response on this question--Joseph Smith just started preferring to use wherefore over therefore starting around 3 Nephi. --meaning he can't explain why it occurs other than Joseph Smith must have changed his usage for inexplicable reasons. But it gets worse, because he really can't explain why that pattern is remarkably similar to the double "that" pattern. Given the limitations of his Book of Mormon production theory, I think that chart must simply be inexplicable. I certainly haven't heard any reasonable explanations from an S/A perspective.

But it would appear that you have other options, no? How do you explain it?

Roger, I get it that all of this data has been tabulated, but no scientific analysis has been performed. You have an incoherent therory ungrounded or bound by any type of methodology to make it significant.

It doesn't matter which is foundational. The extant manuscript has parallels to a discovery narrative written by Joseph Smith that did not even exist at the time the Conneaut witnesses made their initial claims. That's the important point. You asked: "What do you really have except a series of if's and speculations?" and I answered your question, Glenn.

But you did not answer mine: "Now, it's only fair to ask, what do you really have to support your Book of Mormon production theory?"

The Book of Mormon exists. Your S/R theory is an extremely weak ad hoc attempt to explain it away. You still have produced no evidence to refute the lost tribes debacle.

The parallels have been dealt with extensively over the years and in threads that you have participated in. Go back and do a search for Dan and the Spalding theory. He devoted a whole thread to it.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

That Glenn would use that as an opportunity to claim you've disproven S/R just shows how simple he'd like to make the dimensions of this discussion. But reality is often not as simple as theory. The fact is, even if the Roman story is all he wrote (which it isn't, but even if it were) the letter still applies and still supports you! Despite Brodie's false reporting, MSCC has quite a lot of religion in it. Even a complete chapter on the subject! (Oops! How did she miss that?!) In it, Spalding extols the virtues of religion. So we know that what he wrote fictionally for the public did not necessarily match his personal beliefs. If Glenn thinks he can use that to his advantage in this discussion, he's simply wrong.

Roger, I almost bit my tongue off, it was so far into my cheek. Maybe I should put a <grin> after all of those types of posts. Didn't you see the "Spalding Religion" bit?


As I explained to marge, though, Solomon's personal thoughts and feelings on the subject are not what we have to deal with. It is the thoughts and ideas that he communicated to the neighbors and that they reported that are germane. I have invited marge, and now I would invite you to provide some type of evidence from a witness that Solomon entertained publicly any ideas about the lost tribes than that which contemporaries held, I would be glad to examine it. Marge has not done so yet, but only presented conjectures but no evidence. Those statements are a stumbling block that neither of you have overcome or even mitigated with any evidence.

Glenn

[_marg]

As I explained to marge, though, Solomon's personal thoughts and feelings on the subject are not what we have to deal with. It is the thoughts and ideas that he communicated to the neighbors and that they reported that are germane.

(Sorry for bringing up this lost tribes in this thread..after this post I'll next time respond in the other thread instead.)

You are exactly right Glenn it's what Spalding told them. When I looked into Morse's geography to confirm Abner Jackson's comment that Spalding had read about American Indians being of lost tribe descent there...I didn't find that's what Morse's Geography said, instead it said they were Asian descent who had crossed via Bering Str. So not everyone back then Glenn assumed Am. Indian were middle eastern descent. Spalding given his education was likely familiar with the lost tribe myth..but being a biblical skeptic and being familiar with the Bible and believing that the divine had nothing to do with the Bible ..likely accepted the historical account in the Bible of Assyrians exiling Northern Israelite tribes in 720 B.C. and that no historical account of them exists after that. Whatever the myth is, is irrelevant, Spalding didn't have to buy into it, and likely didn't. For his purposes he would only need the lost tribe concept to explain where the Am. Indian came from in time and place, to make his fictional account sound plausible. So he likely explained to his listeners that his story was about Am Indians being of descent from the lost tribes, and he likely explained the lost tribes were exiled tribes in Northern Israel in 720 B.C. That's how he can have in 600 B.C. perhaps at the time of the temple destruction, a few of lost tribe descent leaving Jerusalem. And the witnesses don't question this account as conflicting with any myth, because they were recalling Spalding's story.

That all must have accepted a myth part (whatever that was) back in Spalding's day, that Spalding had to have incorporated that into his story is your conjecture Glenn. As far as this Ethan Smith book in 1823 ..you assume the witnesses all obtained the book, read it, and bought into it and that would be their understanding of what "lost tribes"entailed, rather than what Spalding told them. But they were recalling Spalding's book, and it's doubtful the "lost tribes" concept was something which loomed large in their minds anyhow. Whatever spalding told them is the key..not what some book years later wrote about.

(I'm gone for the next few days)

[_GlennThigpen]

As I explained to marge, though, Solomon's personal thoughts and feelings on the subject are not what we have to deal with. It is the thoughts and ideas that he communicated to the neighbors and that they reported that are germane.

(Sorry for bringing up this lost tribes in this thread..after this post I'll next time respond in the other thread instead.)

You are exactly right Glenn it's what Spalding told them. When I looked into Morse's geography to confirm Abner Jackson's comment that Spalding had read about American Indians being of lost tribe descent there...I didn't find that's what Morse's Geography said, instead it said they were Asian descent who had crossed via Bering Str. So not everyone back then Glenn assumed Am. Indian were middle eastern descent. Spalding given his education was likely familiar with the lost tribe myth..but being a biblical skeptic and being familiar with the Bible and believing that the divine had nothing to do with the Bible ..likely accepted the historical account in the Bible of Assyrians exiling Northern Israelite tribes in 720 B.C. and that no historical account of them exists after that. Whatever the myth is, is irrelevant, Spalding didn't have to buy into it, and likely didn't. For his purposes he would only need the lost tribe concept to explain where the Am. Indian came from in time and place, to make his fictional account sound plausible. So he likely explained to his listeners that his story was about Am Indians being of descent from the lost tribes, and he likely explained the lost tribes were exiled tribes in Northern Israel in 720 B.C. That's how he can have in 600 B.C. perhaps at the time of the temple destruction, a few of lost tribe descent leaving Jerusalem. And the witnesses don't question this account as conflicting with any myth, because they were recalling Spalding's story.

That all must have accepted a myth part (whatever that was) back in Spalding's day, that Spalding had to have incorporated that into his story is your conjecture Glenn. As far as this Ethan Smith book in 1823 ..you assume the witnesses all obtained the book, read it, and bought into it and that would be their understanding of what "lost tribes"entailed, rather than what Spalding told them. But they were recalling Spalding's book, and it's doubtful the "lost tribes" concept was something which loomed large in their minds anyhow. Whatever spalding told them is the key..not what some book years later wrote about.

(I'm gone for the next few days)

Marge, my point is not what Morse's geography said. I could not find the note either. And after reading Matt Roper's information, it is evident that the note really is not there. (But there are things from Morse's geography which are in the manuscript at Oberlin College.) What is relevant is what Abner Jackson understood that Solomon was talking about. His statement and those of the other witnesses conveyed what they understood Solomon to be talking about.
The witnesses statements pretty much delimit where we can logically go. Ethan Smith's book was just the latest in a long line of books and pamphlets speculating on the origin of the American Indians as descendants of the lost tribes that go back to the 1600's. If you will dig back into history, you will find it was a popular theme among the religious sects and was one of the reasons that the Indians were evangelized.

Maybe you or Roger couild find someone of the time evangelizing a different theory. Use the literature of the times, and leading up to the times in question. Maybe you could show that the theme presented in VOTH was not the prevailing idea. Maybe you could find someone that Solomon had confided to that he thought it was rubbish. But that is something that you need to do to make tour hypothesis tenable.

Glenn

[_marg]

(I'm just heading out the door, one last quick response)

Marge, my point is not what Morse's geography said. I could not find the note either. And after reading Matt Roper's information, it is evident that the note really is not there. (But there are things from Morse's geography which are in the manuscript at Oberlin College.) What is relevant is what Abner Jackson understood that Solomon was talking about.

Since I looked into Morse's geography what it said was Am. Indians were of Asian descent via the Bering Str. So contrary to your understanding not everyone back then was aware of or even buying the lost tribe myth. Abner Jackson did not spend much time with spalding. He overheard Spalding's talking with his dad. I don't know what Abner Jackson overheard or what he believed or understood with lost tribes, but the fact is he recalls "lost tribes" as being connected to Spalding's story. so this is yet another witness along with the Conneaut witnesses who recalls Spalding talking about lost tribes and therefore it's not something they are mixing up with what they think the Book of Mormon is about. He may be mixed up on details of what Spalding said, but the general recollect of lost tribes being involved...seems to indicate Spalding did use "lost tribes" as part of the storyline in some way. And MSCC has nothing about lost tribes.

His statement and those of the other witnesses conveyed what they understood Solomon to be talking about.
The witnesses statements pretty much delimit where we can logically go.

I've read the statements, there is very little said about lost tribes other than the consistent main point, that Spalding was writing a story about the Am. Indian and moundbuilders and saying they were descendants of some of the lost tribes. The myth which essentially includes a God, is not necessary Glenn. The tribes were exiled, historically where they went no one knew. Spalding could use that fact.

Ethan Smith's book was just the latest in a long line of books and pamphlets speculating on the origin of the American Indians as descendants of the lost tribes that go back to the 1600's. If you will dig back into history, you will find it was a popular theme among the religious sects and was one of the reasons that the Indians were evangelized.

And yet Morse's geography didn't buy into the lost tribe myth. Being a biblical skeptic it's unlikely Spalding did either.

Maybe you or Roger couild find someone of the time evangelizing a different theory. Use the literature of the times, and leading up to the times in question. Maybe you could show that the theme presented in VOTH was not the prevailing idea. Maybe you could find someone that Solomon had confided to that he thought it was rubbish. But that is something that you need to do to make tour hypothesis tenable.

VOTH was written after Spalding, what the witnesses were recalling was Spalding's story and what he discussed. Do you think they had access to VOTH, all read it and all were convinced by it? I doubt very much any of them owned VOTH or read it. As I point out to you Morse's geography which you say Spalding was aware of and which Abner says Spalding was influenced by had Am. Indians being Asian descent.

We know Spalding was a biblical skeptic. He's not going to think like you Glenn that God had the Assyrians attack and exile the Northern tribes to punish them for some sin and God involved himself in their future. Spalding is going to acknowledge the secular history. For his story the tribes offer him a group of people in time and place to explain where the Am. Indians came from...with the added bonus that some people might have some familiarity with the lost tribe myth and find his story interesting and perhaps plausible. It still doesn't mean he has to adhere to the myth and the myth seems to me to require the biblical God's involvement.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
We know Spalding was a biblical skeptic.
...

I look back at him as having been something more along the lines
of a hostile critic of the biblical religion. He may have accepted
the fact that the Bible contains bits and pieces of actual history;
but I think he viewed its purpose and message as a false (though
effective) means of controlling "believers."

It is possible that Spalding was a Deist -- who retained some
vague notions of an ancient and far-off "Creator," that had no
substantial interactions with human beings. Whether or not he
managed to salvage even that much from his youthful office
(as a licensed evangelist) with the Congregational Church, I
cannot say for sure. But it would not surprise me, if one day
somebody uncovered evidence showing that he was an
out-and-out atheist, who viewed the Bible sardonically.

His own feeble attempt to fabricate mound-builder scriptures
in his Roman story, indicates that Spalding realized the power
of holy writ to organize and manage human society. I suppose
that he would have approved of the establishment of some
new, fabricated religion for post-colonial America. It would not
have been Freemasonry (which his wife said he opposed) --
but I can picture him supporting some sort of pseudo-science
"revelations" which served to control social morality, etc.

I do NOT see him as the hyper-Christian missionary voice we
continually hear throughout the Book of Mormon. I doubt very
much that Spalding could have summoned up that high level
of pious-sounding sarcasm -- for a religion he did not believe,
and for which he had no respect.

The most I can picture him creating, in some fictional story,
would be Israelite Nephites who became Christians in ancient
America, in response to an apostolic visit from St. Thomas, or
some other wide-ranging first century Christian missionary.

Supposing that Spalding might have concocted such a scenario
in his story (the lost Book of Lehi?) -- I cannot fathom his ever
bringing such a fiction to the climax of the 3rd Nephi visitation
of Jesus Christ. If there is one episode in the Nephite record
which clearly cannot have been Spalding's literary creation, I
would point to that pseudo-Christophany.

UD

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Not to be too hard on you because in general you're a good sport, but... this is pretty glaring:

But you did not answer mine: "Now, it's only fair to ask, what do you really have to support your Book of Mormon production theory?"

The Book of Mormon exists. Your S/R theory is an extremely weak ad hoc attempt to explain it away. You still have produced no evidence to refute the lost tribes debacle.

So the only thing you have to support your Book of Mormon production theory is that "The Book of Mormon exists"? That's it? You're hyper critical of S/R and all you can say in defense of your own theory is: "The Book of Mormon exists"? And yet we're all just supposed to keep on with the discussion as if that's somehow equitable? Really??

And on a similar note....

But it would appear that you have other options, no? How do you explain it?

Roger, I get it that all of this data has been tabulated, but no scientific analysis has been performed. You have an incoherent therory ungrounded or bound by any type of methodology to make it significant.

Glenn, you and Dan and Mikwut were the guys alleging that you have science on your side--which, with all due respect is ludicrous coming from an Official Version point of view. But that's what you're alleging when you claim Bruce's study Trump's Matt's. Well science involves making predictions and then doing experiments to see if those predictions can be supported.

I asked you and Dan to make a prediction about how you think error distribution should fall across the 1830 text from the point of view of your respective Book of Mormon production theories and you both balked. You won't even venture a guess. So then I noticed that Dale had already posted a chart way back on page 11 of this thread that features only some of the data I was referring to earlier on this thread. But it's enough data to make a point. And the point is your Book of Mormon production theory can't explain the actual data! Nor can Dan's! In fact, my strong suspicion is that Dan's Book of Mormon production theory will have a much more difficult time explaining the raw data (as it continues to come out) than yours will, because you can always blame the variation on ancient Nephites or God's playfulness or both and Dan has neither option because he's stuck with Joseph Smith producing all the content with the exception of the KJVB plagiarism.

As more data comes forward this is going to be a much more serious problem for S/A than for S/D. In fact, quite frankly, I don't see how S/A can survive without seriously backing away from the very notion of S/A (meaning Smith producing content all by himself). I think at some point they are going to have to admit somebody else was involved in producing content and the most likely candidate at that point is Oliver Cowdery. Maybe there is some way I haven't thought of that they can make it work with only Joseph Smith. Maybe Dan and other S/A proponents can come up with some credible twist to explain how Joseph was such an amazing genius he could dramatically alter not only his non-contextual wordprint, but also his wherefore/therefore patterns and all of it would conform to his apparently unconscious error patterns that are evident at the beginning and end but not in the middle! But I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Of course the chart only represents the beginning of what's coming. But I'll make a prediction that it will only get worse for S/A and S/D because the forthcoming raw data is going to look very similar to the clear pattern we see in Dale's chart. And so far neither you nor Dan know what to make of it.

S/R is the only major Book of Mormon production theory that I am aware of for which the data in Dale's chart is completely compatible--even predicted.

Now when you are forced to confront that data, and your only response is "The Book of Mormon exists" then I don't think your hypercriticism of S/R will make much difference.

[_GlennThigpen]

Ethan Smith's book was just the latest in a long line of books and pamphlets speculating on the origin of the American Indians as descendants of the lost tribes that go back to the 1600's. If you will dig back into history, you will find it was a popular theme among the religious sects and was one of the reasons that the Indians were evangelized.

And yet Morse's geography didn't buy into the lost tribe myth. Being a biblical skeptic it's unlikely Spalding did either.

Of course everyone did not buy into the theory. That has never been a point of dispute. And it does not matter whether Solomon bought into the idea himself. The witnesses reported that he did, and carried that idea out in his book.

Maybe you or Roger couild find someone of the time evangelizing a different theory. Use the literature of the times, and leading up to the times in question. Maybe you could show that the theme presented in VOTH was not the prevailing idea. Maybe you could find someone that Solomon had confided to that he thought it was rubbish. But that is something that you need to do to make tour hypothesis tenable.

VOTH was written after Spalding, what the witnesses were recalling was Spalding's story and what he discussed. Do you think they had access to VOTH, all read it and all were convinced by it? I doubt very much any of them owned VOTH or read it. As I point out to you Morse's geography which you say Spalding was aware of and which Abner says Spalding was influenced by had Am. Indians being Asian descent.

We know Spalding was a biblical skeptic. He's not going to think like you Glenn that God had the Assyrians attack and exile the Northern tribes to punish them for some sin and God involved himself in their future. Spalding is going to acknowledge the secular history. For his story the tribes offer him a group of people in time and place to explain where the Am. Indians came from...with the added bonus that some people might have some familiarity with the lost tribe myth and find his story interesting and perhaps plausible. It still doesn't mean he has to adhere to the myth and the myth seems to me to require the biblical God's involvement.

Marge, you just blew by the point I made. The idea that the American Indians were descendants of the lost tribes had been in vogue since sometime in the 1600's. It was not a "Johnny-come-lately" idea that originated with Ethan Smith. He only built upon that idea and referenced the ideas and work of earlier authors, such as Boudinot. I only used the VOTH as an example of the literature of the time. Just one of them. Not nearly all.

Abner Jackson got his idea about the connection between Morse's geography, Solomon, and the lost tribes during the converstaion he listened in on between Solomon and his father.
Martha Spalding, John Spalding, John Miller, and Aaron Wright got their idea that Solomon's story was about the lost tribes from Solomon. Martha's statement is specific in that it states that "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." Whether Solomon privately thought it all a bunch of bull or not, according to Martha, he was publicly contending that the American Indians were descendants of the lost tribes. That is not my interpretation. It is her statement. Of course, if you wish, we can just cross off any witness that mentioned the lost tribes as unreliable. You have plenty more, right?
Abner Jackson corroborates a report by Daniel Tyler that the story was something about the lost tribes coming over via the bering straits. Tyler's report is secondhand, but does receive corroboration which enhances its credibility.


Glenn