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

[_GlennThigpen]

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.

Roger, I do not claim that science has proven or even has found evidence for the Divine explanation of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. When I said that he book exists, it does. It came forth with some wonderful claims. Skeptics have tried from the first to find a viable naturalistic explanation. The S/R theory is just one of those theories, but leaves too many questions unanswered, and has a paucity of evidentiary support. It is not scientific from the beginning.

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.

You do not know what problems any further data will cause for any of the theories. You cannot show presently using linguistic and literary tools what the data that yu do have means.

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.

You have not looked into the Hebraisms, etc. in the Book of Mormon very well. The S/R theory does not account for them, nor the 180 or so new names introduced into the Book of Mormon. LDS scholars have always been aware of the multiple authorship claims in the Book of Mormon.
When all of the data is tabulated, and some valid literary and linguistic tools are applied, they will still leave the S/R theory just where it has always been. When the Jockers study first came out, there was a rush to the altar, but when Bruce made a few extensions to the matter, using valid statistical tools and methods, the honeymoon was over.
When you can show me some science behind the data, something other than, "I know it when I see it", I will be willing Old Testament analyse what you present.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Hey we're in the triple digits!

Glenn:

You do not know what problems any further data will cause for any of the theories. You cannot show presently using linguistic and literary tools what the data that yu do have means.

It means that there is more than one 19th century voice producing content for the Book of Mormon. Even though your theory can account for multiple voices, the pattern cuts across and into and skips over what should be discernible lines based on the claims the text makes for itself. In other words, if your theory is right, we shouldn't see such a pronounced beginning/ending contrasted with the middle pattern. The patterns should vary throughout, rather than remaining fairly constant throughout the text (which is what S/A would predict), but the beginning/ending as distinct from the middle is not what we would expect from the perspective of S/D (or S/A for that matter) and must be considered something of an anomaly.

While I'm sure FARMS apologists in the next decade or so will be able to come up with (ad hoc?) reasons why the patterns appear in certain books or parts of books but not in others, the S/R explanation will explain the data much better (as it does right now) because one 19th century author could represent more than one fictional Nephite author or redactor and in fact material assigned to one Nephite author by the text could actually have been produced by more than one 19th century author. This, is what we are just beginning to see in Dale's chart. As far as I can tell, at some point S/A will be forced to adapt to the multiple author viewpoint and will likely agree that Cowdery produced some of the content. Whether S/A advocates will consider any authors beyond Cowdery at some point is hard to say, but if this thread is indicative of anything, they will be highly resistant to it.

The future problems are going to look like the data in Dale's chart that neither you nor Dan know what to make of. That data shows a high occurrence of "wherefore" at the beginning and ending of the 1830 Book of Mormon text with almost none in the middle. Following the same pattern, as can easily be seen from the chart, is the redundant "that" frequency of occurrence. And there is more to come. So the problem is just going to get worse. With each new example, the lack of explanatory power of either S/A or S/D to account for the raw data will become more glaring.

If the patterns were various, it would help S/A and S/D. If you could superimpose other graphs that don't match the same pattern it could help. Perhaps that can be done, but with each chart that is added that follows the same beginning/ending but not middle pattern, the need to explain the data becomes more pronounced and S/A and S/D's inability to do so becomes more apparent. So far as I can tell, only S/R adequately explains the data.

[_Roger]

Glenn:

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.

I don't see why you're belaboring this point? What is your point? Either way it works, so I don't see what the big deal is. If Spalding believed in a Hebrew connection then he could have produced a ms that used that as a backdrop to his fictional account. He doesn't have to be a believer in the Bible to use a Hebrew origins backdrop for his fictional account. And he also doesn't have to account for every member of every lost tribe to qualify as using a lost tribes theme as the backdrop to his fictional account.

And if he did not believe in it, he could still choose to speak about it with friends and use it as the backdrop to his fictional account, given its popularity even though he himself rejects it. It works either way!

Beyond that the ms could have been--and in fact under S/R was--altered. You don't know what parts Rigdon, Smith or Cowdery changed. You don't even know what parts the witnesses perceived as "verbatim" and you don't know the extent to which they were using that word, but they explicitly point out that it was only some of the text that they recognized as "verbatim" and they nearly unanimously mentioned that a lot of religious content was mixed in! You're simply trying to get the witnesses to claim things they don't claim.

And beyond that, the witnesses understanding of the mere backdrop of the story does not have to be flawless for them to be telling the truth--meaning that they really were exposed to a Spalding ms.

You haven't cast any doubt on any of that. So what is your point?

[_GlennThigpen]

I don't see why you're belaboring this point? What is your point? Either way it works, so I don't see what the big deal is. If Spalding believed in a Hebrew connection then he could have produced a ms that used that as a backdrop to his fictional account. He doesn't have to be a believer in the Bible to use a Hebrew origins backdrop for his fictional account. And he also doesn't have to account for every member of every lost tribe to qualify as using a lost tribes theme as the backdrop to his fictional account.

And if he did not believe in it, he could still choose to speak about it with friends and use it as the backdrop to his fictional account, given its popularity even though he himself rejects it. It works either way!

Beyond that the ms could have been--and in fact under S/R was--altered. You don't know what parts Rigdon, Smith or Cowdery changed. You don't even know what parts the witnesses perceived as "verbatim" and you don't know the extent to which they were using that word, but they explicitly point out that it was only some of the text that they recognized as "verbatim" and they nearly unanimously mentioned that a lot of religious content was mixed in! You're simply trying to get the witnesses to claim things they don't claim.

And beyond that, the witnesses understanding of the mere backdrop of the story does not have to be flawless for them to be telling the truth--meaning that they really were exposed to a Spalding ms.

You haven't cast any doubt on any of that. So what is your point?

Number one, the consensus of the Conneaut witnesses was that the Book of Mormon read almost identical to the Book of Mormon, except for the historical parts.

"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" (John Miller)

"I have recently read the Book of Mormon, and to my great surprize I find nearly the same historical matter, names, &c. as they were in my brother's writings." (John Spalding)

"I have no manner of doubt that the historical part of it, is the same that I read and heard read, more than 20 years ago." (Martha Spalding)

"The historical part of the Book of Mormon, I know to be the same as I read and heard read from the writings of Spalding, more than twenty years ago;" Aaron Wright.

Each of those witnesses also say that Solomon Spalding was writing a story about the lost tribes. "He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question." (Martha Spalding)

"A note in Morse's Geography suggested it as a possibility that our Indians were descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. Said Morse, they might have wandered through Asia up to Behring's Strait, and across the Strait to this continent. Besides there were habits and ceremonies among them that resembled some habits and ceremonies among the Israelites of that day. Then the old fortifications and earth mounds, containing so many kinds of relics and human bones, and some of them so large, altogether convinced him that they were a larger race and more enlightened and civilized than are found among the Indians among us at this day. These facts and reflections prompted him to write his Romance, purporting to be a history of the lost tribes of Israel." (Abner Jackson)

The point should be quite clear. The witnesses said that Spalding was writing a story about the lost tribes. That story is conspicuous by its absence in the Book of Mormon. According to those witnesses the Book of Mormon should be a story of the lost tribes of Israel emigrating to the United States, via the Bering Straits and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians.

If Rigdon et al made so many changes to the manuscript that the witnesses could not recognize the main part of the story, it would not have read anywhere near the same as Solomon's manuscript. The lost tribes story was a major part of Solomon's story, according to at least five witnesses. And his work was supposedly historical in nature. And the historical part was supposed to be found mirrored almost intact in the Book of Mormon.

That is not my paradigm. It is the paradigm that is reported by the witnesses. There is no wiggle room there. There is, of course, maybe a problem of being in denial. Alas, my old therapist is no longer practicing, so I have no referrals for you. <grin>

Glenn

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Okay, thanks for at least putting this in a manageable form.

Number one, the consensus of the Conneaut witnesses was that the Book of Mormon read almost identical to the Book of Mormon, except for the historical parts.

Your number one is simply wrong.

First you said "except for the historical parts" and I'm pretty sure you mean "except for the religious parts."

Next, they never said "that the Book of Mormon read almost identical to the Book of Mormon" since comparing the Book of Mormon to itself should indeed result in a verbatim copy--unless of course we're going to compare the 1830 Book of Mormon with the 2011 Book of Mormon, but that's another issue. So again, I'm pretty sure you meant to say that they were claiming that Spalding's Manuscript Found read almost identical to the Book of Mormon. However, they did not say that. Rather that is merely what you wish they had said.

Third, we all agree that when we're speaking about the Book of Mormon and we say "except for the religious parts" that's a pretty large exception. I think it was Dan who pointed out long ago somewhere lost on this mega-thread that religion occurs on nearly every page of the Book of Mormon. So that right there should be your first clue that they're really not saying what you wish they had said.

Now, you were kind enough to post some of what they said and if you will notice, they DO NOT say what you wish they said:

"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" (John Miller)

You can't just overlook what Miller says, Glenn. We've been over this before. There is a lot of "scripture and other religious matter" mixed in. The verbatim passages (by the way, did you notice that word, Glenn? passages? that's not the same as what you wish Miller had said but didn't) are likely among those that Jockers and Dale attribute to Spalding. How much do you want to bet against that? <grin>

"I have recently read the Book of Mormon, and to my great surprize I find nearly the same historical matter, names, &c. as they were in my brother's writings." (John Spalding)

Again, he's not saying what you wish he'd said. Nearly the same historical matter, names, &c. means that it's not the same and certainly not "verbatim." The thing they all agreed was the same were the names of the lead characters, Nephi and Lehi. The historical matter could be nearly the same general historical outline.

"I have no manner of doubt that the historical part of it, is the same that I read and heard read, more than 20 years ago." (Martha Spalding)

"The historical part of the Book of Mormon, I know to be the same as I read and heard read from the writings of Spalding, more than twenty years ago;" Aaron Wright.

Again, a similar general historical outline. Nothing about "verbatim."

Each of those witnesses also say that Solomon Spalding was writing a story about the lost tribes. "He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question." (Martha Spalding)

"A note in Morse's Geography suggested it as a possibility that our Indians were descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. Said Morse, they might have wandered through Asia up to Behring's Strait, and across the Strait to this continent. Besides there were habits and ceremonies among them that resembled some habits and ceremonies among the Israelites of that day. Then the old fortifications and earth mounds, containing so many kinds of relics and human bones, and some of them so large, altogether convinced him that they were a larger race and more enlightened and civilized than are found among the Indians among us at this day. These facts and reflections prompted him to write his Romance, purporting to be a history of the lost tribes of Israel." (Abner Jackson)

Well what is clear is that Abner is not remembering MSCC. Can we agree on that? So either ol'e Abner is getting his facts messed up a bit or Spalding just might have written another tale besides MSCC. I'll take door number two.

The point should be quite clear.

You mean the point where you keep wishing the witnesses said stuff they never said?

The witnesses said that Spalding was writing a story about the lost tribes.

No they didn't! They simply said he used the idea in his fictional account. You're reading way too much into what they actually said, Glenn. His goal was not to write an account of the lost tribes! He simply used that idea as a backdrop to the story he wanted to write.

That story is conspicuous by its absence in the Book of Mormon.

And I think I asked this like forty pages ago... so what? Do you understand what S/R postulates? Don't get your S/R theory from Dan Vogel. No S/R theorist claims that Solomon Spalding wrote the Book of Mormon. Let that sink in.

In the first place, we don't know what Spalding wrote regarding "lost tribes" because MSCC does not have a (discernible) lost tribes basis. In the second place, he could easily have written a fictional account using the lost tribes motif as the backdrop to his fictional account, but not the focus of it. He could have had Lehi, for example, as one of the lost tribes immigrating to Jerusalem and then on to America, or any number of other possibilities, but we simply don't know one way or another, since A. we do not have his Manuscript Found and B. even the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon were re-written and even you don't know what was in them! So there is no way you're going to make this argument stick. There's nothing to stick it to.

According to those witnesses the Book of Mormon should be a story of the lost tribes of Israel emigrating to the United States, via the Bering Straits and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians.

No. That's according to Glenn's strawman. That's according to what you wish they said but they never did. And whatever was in Spalding's tale regarding a lost tribes motif does not have to match what is currently in the Book of Mormon. That's a huge point you seem to be missing.

If Rigdon et al made so many changes to the manuscript that the witnesses could not recognize the main part of the story, it would not have read anywhere near the same as Solomon's manuscript.

Nonsense, Glenn. That's just silly. One can easily change the backdrop of the story from one where Lehi is one of the lost tribes to the current version we see in the Book of Mormon without rendering the overall story unrecognizable! That's just silly. The names could stay the same. They speak the same language worship the same God, have similar quarrels etc. etc. But more importantly, S/R theorizes that the parts of the Book of Mormon that should most resemble Spalding's writings are the parts following the 116 page replacement because the replacement part was rewritten. That's why the names in that section are the same, but the content has narrative "mixed up with scripture and other religious matter, which [Miller] did not meet with in the "Manuscript Found(!)" And guess what, Glenn? Jockers and Dale, using different observation methodologies, find the most Spaldingish sections, in the middle... after we come out of the 116 page replacement section! Coincidence? And guess what... the middle is also where we find "therefore" used much more than "wherefore(!)" Spalding never uses "wherefore(!)" Coincidence? And, oddly enough, it's in the middle where the Appalachian dialect tends to take a back seat. If you take a look at Dale's chart, you'll notice we find zero occurrences of a redundant "that" in the middle(!) But we sure start seeing them again at the end(!) Coincidence, Glenn?

The lost tribes story was a major part of Solomon's story, according to at least five witnesses.

No it wasn't. They never said that. Those are your words. You're trying to get them to say things they never said.

And his work was supposedly historical in nature. And the historical part was supposed to be found mirrored almost intact in the Book of Mormon.

His work was a fictional romance! Everyone knew that. The historical backdrop about a group of Hebrews migrating to the New World was likely mirrored, but not exactly.

You are demanding way too much. These were people who simply listened to and perhaps read portions of Spalding's manuscript as he was writing it, never suspecting they'd be testifying about it 20+ years down the road. To what extent Spalding used the lost tribes motif as a backdrop to the larger fictional story is simply unknown. But the witnesses remember the names of the lead characters, as we would expect them to, but in all this mess they also find a jumble of "scripture and other religious matter, which [they] did not meet with in the "Manuscript Found..." You simply can't get around that, Glenn. They're just trying to do their best to explain to you what they are seeing in front of them. It wasn't Spalding's story verbatim. That much they knew. But they also knew that some sections sure reminded them of Spalding's novel--nearly verbatim. And they knew the lead characters had the same names.

That is not my paradigm. It is the paradigm that is reported by the witnesses. There is no wiggle room there. There is, of course, maybe a problem of being in denial. Alas, my old therapist is no longer practicing, so I have no referrals for you. <grin>

No, sorry, Glenn, that IS your paradigm! You're not taking the witnesses for what they actually say. You're superimposing what you wish they would have said.

Beyond that.... that you can't even venture a guess at explaining the data in Dale's chart is a real problem because that data is empirical. It can't change. The only thing that can change is how you choose to interpret it, but right now you can't even venture a guess. You don't know how to interpret it because it does not fit into your paradigm. But the problem is it's never going to change so it can conform to your paradigm. It has to be the other way around. <grin>

[_GlennThigpen]

No, sorry, Glenn, that IS your paradigm! You're not taking the witnesses for what they actually say. You're superimposing what you wish they would have said.

Roger, I am not going over each of your responses point by point.

I disagree with your contention that Sidnet Rigdon could have taken Solomon's story, if was about the lost tribes, and edited the lost tribes story out of it, where it would still be recognizeable as Solomon's work. Not when the witnesses said that that "I have recently examined the Book of Mormon, and find in it the writings of Solomon Spalding, from beginning to end," No one will read the 1830 Book of Mormon and think that it is a lost tribes story. In fact, the Book of Mormon says that it is not about the lost tribes.

And here is another one for you by Henry Lake. "Since that, I have more fully examined the said Golden Bible, and have no hesitation in saying that the historical part of it is principally, if not wholly taken from the "Manuscript Found."

The four Conneaut witnesses did not say verbatim "that the Book og Mormon read nearly identical to Solomn's story except for the religious parts." That was my summary. However, those quotes that I gave back up what I said. I also did not say or imply that Solomon Spalding wrote the Book of Mormon. I was just reporting what the witneses had said.
And Aaron Wright did use the word verbatim in his description. "I also contemplated reading his history but never saw it in print untill I saw the Book of Mormon where I find much of the history and the names verbatim"
Oliver Smith continued that theme also. "When I heard the historical part of it related, I at once said it was the writings of old Solomon Spalding. Soon after, I obtained the book, and on reading it, found much of it the same as Spalding had written, more than twenty years before"


Almost is a synonym for much. Identical is a synonym for same. In the context that we are discussing, my summary is pretty much spot on. "From begining to end" is self-explanatory. I am afraid that you are the one not taking the witnesses for what they say according to the English that they used.

By the way, that "beginning to end" statement, as well as the other statements saying that Solomn's writings are found all throughout the Book of Mormon messes with the predictions you are trying to make from Dale's data.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Hi Glenn:

Even your most recent Lake quote does not say what you are trying to make it say:

And here is another one for you by Henry Lake. "Since that, I have more fully examined the said Golden Bible, and have no hesitation in saying that the historical part of it is principally, if not wholly taken from the "Manuscript Found."

Do you see what he's saying, Glenn? You must not, but he's not saying what you wish he did. First, he's speaking specifically about "the historical part" --just like the others. And we have already agreed that there's a lot of material that is religious as opposed to historical in the Book of Mormon. Second, he actually uses the word "principally." But you see the next words "if not wholly" and you want to pounce! But that pouncing is premature, because he qualifies that (as if the word "principally" wasn't enough!) by saying "taken from." That does not mean the Book of Mormon author just copied the whole Spalding manuscript. It means the historical part--or the historical backdrop--was principally if not wholly Spalding's idea! That is exactly what all the witnesses are trying to tell you.

You have to realize they are looking at a mess... a jumble. This is not exactly what they remember being exposed to, and they recognize that, because someone has thrown a bunch of other stuff in there--all over the place--and they label that extemporaneous stuff "religious" material. But they can still see a lot of Spalding in the mess too. None of them says, look, Alma 40-46 is nearly all Spalding. They just say, there's a lot of Spalding in there and yet a lot of religious stuff mixed in with it.

Almost is a synonym for much. Identical is a synonym for same. In the context that we are discussing, my summary is pretty much spot on. "From begining to end" is self-explanatory. I am afraid that you are the one not taking the witnesses for what they say according to the English that they used.

Glenn the point you are missing is that the part you are focusing on is only the historical part. That is what they are saying is almost the same. But they are saying even that is not exactly the same! It was almost the same historical backdrop. But they also explicitly tell you except for the religious stuff. And there's a LOT of religious stuff. Like Dan says, there's religious content on nearly every page!

Apparently we're just not going to agree on this. I simply think you're wrong and you're trying to force them to say things they never actually said. You seem to want "from beginning to end" to mean the whole thing was exactly the same from beginning to end and that is simply not what they claim at all and that is plain for anyone to see. What else can I say?

So we just disagree.

But let's go with your theory on this to follow the logic.... let's say you're right for the sake of discussion... what then? What is your conclusion? Isn't the only logical conclusion that they were simply lying? How can you make the case for sincere memory substitution work if you're attempting to make them say that they found the Book of Mormon to be a nearly verbatim plagiarism of Spalding when there's no Lost Tribes account in the Book of Mormon? Your logic seems to end in a conspiracy to lie, no?

[_GlennThigpen]

Hi Glenn:

Even your most recent Lake quote does not say what you are trying to make it say:

And here is another one for you by Henry Lake. "Since that, I have more fully examined the said Golden Bible, and have no hesitation in saying that the historical part of it is principally, if not wholly taken from the "Manuscript Found."

Do you see what he's saying, Glenn? You must not, but he's not saying what you wish he did. First, he's speaking specifically about "the historical part" --just like the others. And we have already agreed that there's a lot of material that is religious as opposed to historical in the Book of Mormon. Second, he actually uses the word "principally." But you see the next words "if not wholly" and you want to pounce! But that pouncing is premature, because he qualifies that (as if the word "principally" wasn't enough!) by saying "taken from." That does not mean the Book of Mormon author just copied the whole Spalding manuscript. It means the historical part--or the historical backdrop--was principally if not wholly Spalding's idea! That is exactly what all the witnesses are trying to tell you.

You have to realize they are looking at a mess... a jumble. This is not exactly what they remember being exposed to, and they recognize that, because someone has thrown a bunch of other stuff in there--all over the place--and they label that extemporaneous stuff "religious" material. But they can still see a lot of Spalding in the mess too. None of them says, look, Alma 40-46 is nearly all Spalding. They just say, there's a lot of Spalding in there and yet a lot of religious stuff mixed in with it.

Almost is a synonym for much. Identical is a synonym for same. In the context that we are discussing, my summary is pretty much spot on. "From begining to end" is self-explanatory. I am afraid that you are the one not taking the witnesses for what they say according to the English that they used.

Glenn the point you are missing is that the part you are focusing on is only the historical part. That is what they are saying is almost the same. But they are saying even that is not exactly the same! It was almost the same historical backdrop. But they also explicitly tell you except for the religious stuff. And there's a LOT of religious stuff. Like Dan says, there's religious content on nearly every page!

Apparently we're just not going to agree on this. I simply think you're wrong and you're trying to force them to say things they never actually said. You seem to want "from beginning to end" to mean the whole thing was exactly the same from beginning to end and that is simply not what they claim at all and that is plain for anyone to see. What else can I say?

So we just disagree.

But let's go with your theory on this to follow the logic.... let's say you're right for the sake of discussion... what then? What is your conclusion? Isn't the only logical conclusion that they were simply lying? How can you make the case for sincere memory substitution work if you're attempting to make them say that they found the Book of Mormon to be a nearly verbatim plagiarism of Spalding when there's no Lost Tribes account in the Book of Mormon? Your logic seems to end in a conspiracy to lie, no?

Roger, I am focusing on the historical part exactly because the the witnesses said that it was ripped "principally if not wholly" from Solomon Spalding story. They are saying exactly what I have been pointing out. The witnesses gave us very few details for us to check and we do not have that mythical, legendary, second manuscript to compare for accuracy.
We have seven witnesses, John Spalding, Martha Spalding, Aaron Wright, John Miller, Abner Jackson, Daniel Tyler, Redick McKee, and Matilda McKinstry who at various times said that Solomon was writing a story about the lost tribes. That would be a historical facet, the physical migration of the lost tribes to the Americas and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians, because the witnesses said that they remember no religious material from Solomon's story.
The fact that there is no lost tribes story in the Book of Mormon is inimical to a statement that the historical parts of the Book of Mormon are "principally if not wholly" taken from Spalding's story.

It does not matter whether they were dazed and confused, or lying, or what. Those statements, as written, are inaccurate. There is no lost tribes story in the Book of Mormon, and there should be if the witnesses were correct that Solomon Spalding was writing a story about the lost tribes.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Glenn:

The fact that there is no lost tribes story in the Book of Mormon is inimical to a statement that the historical parts of the Book of Mormon are "principally if not wholly" taken from Spalding's story.

No it isn't. Again, Spalding's work was not about a lost tribes story, rather it likely used the lost tribes motif as a historical backdrop to the fictional story. But that framework could also have been altered by Rigdon, Smith or Cowdery, and likely was. We do not know what was in the lost 116 pages. Therefore, Spalding's story could have contained a lost tribes motif historical backdrop, exactly as the witnesses claim, but we do not see exactly the same motif in the the Book of Mormon. Contrary to what you seem to want to claim, such a change is a subtle change. And that does not render their statements false that the historical narrative portions of the Book of Mormon were still taken (borrowed) from Spalding's work.

It does not matter whether they were dazed and confused, or lying, or what. Those statements, as written, are inaccurate. There is no lost tribes story in the Book of Mormon, and there should be if the witnesses were correct that Solomon Spalding was writing a story about the lost tribes.

It does matter because the way you are presenting this argument leaves no alternative other than dishonest witnesses who all agree to lie. You're going beyond even Vogel's criticism where he emphasizes that he's not claiming the S/R witnesses were liars but were simply mistaken. So why would they do that, Glenn? What is their motivation to lie like that?

Still no explanation for the data in Dale's chart? Is your Book of Mormon production theory forced to come to the conclusion that that data represents an anomaly? Or is there some explanation for it that meshes with S/D?

[_GlennThigpen]

The fact that there is no lost tribes story in the Book of Mormon is inimical to a statement that the historical parts of the Book of Mormon are "principally if not wholly" taken from Spalding's story.

Glenn:
No it isn't. Again, Spalding's work was not about a lost tribes story, rather it likely used the lost tribes motif as a historical backdrop to the fictional story. But that framework could also have been altered by Rigdon, Smith or Cowdery, and likely was. We do not know what was in the lost 116 pages. Therefore, Spalding's story could have contained a lost tribes motif historical backdrop, exactly as the witnesses claim, but we do not see exactly the same motif in the the Book of Mormon. Contrary to what you seem to want to claim, such a change is a subtle change. And that does not render their statements false that the historical narrative portions of the Book of Mormon were still taken (borrowed) from Spalding's work.

To which Glenn replies, but Roger, the you have witnesses that said that Solomon's story was about the lost tribes. Are you throwing Martha Spalding under the bus when she says "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."
Or Henry Lake who said "This book represented the American Indians as the descendants of the lost tribes,"
Those statements, among others say that was what Solomon's supposed second manuscript was about. The lost tribes. Not just a motif.
Contray to what you assert, such a change would be much more than subtle.

I do not know why you keep bringing up the lost 116 pages. It does not matter to the S/R theory what they contained. None of the Spaldingish witnesses ever saw those 116 pages. They only supposedly saw a manuscript about the lost tribes and they saw thew Book of Mormon, however briefly. You keep trying to equate a little bit like with "principally if not wholly". It may work for you, but it does not work in the real world.

However, I will not beat that horse any longer, or should I say horses. I have beaten all of the horses of the lost tribes to death. If they ever did migrate, as per Solomon's publicly stated theory, according to the witnesses, then they would have had to do so on foot after the beating I meted out to their horses.

Now, for something entirely different. I found an interesting idea put forth by Uncle Dale. That idea is that Solomon incorporated a real life incident that he may have witnessed in his Roman story as put forth in the manuscript now at Oberlin college.

The event he mentions concerns an incident that happened when the denizens of Conneaut were rousted out of their beds one night by an alarm that the "British were coming".

I will quote the excerpt and the one that Dale thinks is the adaptation.

The inhabitants of the upper part of the settlement principally fled across the creek and retired to Fort Hill, where amidst its ancient ruins, then covered with a thick forest, they hoped to find a place of temporary security. Before reaching this place of refuge, however, a variety of disasters, more or less serious, had occurred, principally occasioned by the necessity of fording the Conneaut.
In the absence of other means of conveyance, the younger children, and some of the women, were obliged to be carried over on the shoulders of the men. One rather portly lady was being thus transported on the back of her husband, who happened to be a small man, when by missing his footing on a slippery rock in the middle passage, they were both precipitated into the stream, and before he could shift his ballast so as to shake his head fairly above water, it is said he was in danger of being drowned. Within the dilapidated walls of the old fort, hid among the bushes, they passed a tedious and uncomfortable night...

The incident which excited the most meriment hapned when the last pair desended. by an unlucky spring to clear himself from the quagmire he bro't his body along side of the declivity & roled his whole length into the midst of the quagmire, where he lay his whole length in an horizontal position on his back neither heels up or head up, but horizontally, soft & easy. But alas, when one unlucky event happens another follows close on its heals. The fair plump corpulent damsel his affectionate sweetheart came instantly sliding with great velocity. She saw the woful position of her beloved. She wished him no harm, she raised her feet, this bro't the center of gravity directly over the center of his head, here she rested a moment, his head sunk, she sunk after him, his heels kicked against the wind like Jeshuran waxed fat, but not a word from his lips, but his ideas came in quick succession, though't he, what a disgrace to die here in the mud under the pressure of my sweetheart, however his time for such reflections were short, the tender hearted maid collecting all her agility in one effort, dismounted & found herself on dry land in an instant, not a moment to be lost. She seized her lover by one leg, & draged him from the mud, a curious figure extending about six feet six inches on the ground, all besmeared from head to foot, spitting, puffing, panting & struggling for breath. Poor man, the whole multitude laughing at thy calamity, shouting, ridiculing, none to give thee consolation but thy loving and sympathetic partner in misfortune.

And here is Dale's take on that:

The possibility that Spalding was still in New Salem at this time, and that he witnessed this memorable event, is strengthened by an incident of that night, which is more or less detailed in an episode from his Oberlin romance. In both reports a woman accidentally nearly suffocates or drowns her lover beneath her weight in a watery mire while urgently attempting to reach its other side. (Page 27 of the Oberlin Manuscript)

So, what do you think? Is this one of your significant parallels? Or is it just one of those co-incidences of life, signifying nothing?

Glenn