Cont'd "ad hoc fallacy/Occam's Razor" from another thread

[_GlennThigpen]

- First...l your counter is subjective not open to objective verification. My counter also involves subjective interpretation of facts, but that’s simply the nature of this discussion. There are some facts and then those facts are open to interpretation to some degree. For this reason the ad hoc fallacy is not applicable.

Negative. My counter started with the witnesses themselves. I quoted Martha Spalding.

- Second, it is inappropriate to impose a different standard of proof on my response than you do on your counter to which I'm responding.

I did not ask for proof. I only asked that you provide evidence that would negate that which I introduced. Exactly the same standards. I asked you to provide statements the witnesses or by Solomon that what he believed or understood about the lost tribes was different from what the prevailing ideas of the day were. I referenced Abner Jackson as one that indicated that Solomon's ideas were in line with the prevailing thoughts of the day. There are others also who mention the bering straits, such as Daniel Tyler and Lorin Gould.[/quote]

-Third, my response included evidence and reasoning that pertained to that evidence. Nothing I said was irrational, that is without evidence and warranted reasoning. An ad hoc fallacious response is an irrational response to adverse facts in order to maintain a hypothesis, that’s not what is going on with my response.

The only thing you have offered as evidence is that Solomon had, at some point, seemingly become irreligious. Whatever his actual feelings, the statements of the witnesses do not show any evidence that Solomon had ideas any different than what were the prevailing ideas of the day. You are changing the definition of an ad hoc response a bit by introducing the word irrational. Your response was certainly ad hoc. It was created solely for the purpose of counteracting the evidence that I presented. It is fallacious because it presents no evidence that can be verified or refuted.
In order for you to salvage your explanation, you must show that the witnesses were not talking about a the same type of lost tribes theory which Boudinot or Ethan Smith were espousing. You must show some evidence that Solomon enteratined some radically different ideas about the lost tribes.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

- First...l your counter is subjective not open to objective verification. My counter also involves subjective interpretation of facts, but that’s simply the nature of this discussion. There are some facts and then those facts are open to interpretation to some degree. For this reason the ad hoc fallacy is not applicable.

Marge, my counter is based on the evidence. It is a fact that five, (actually seven if you count Daniel Tyler and Lorin Gould) said that Solomon talked about and was writing about a lost tribes story. It is a fact taht Abner Jackson's statement as well as that of Daniel Tyler and Lorin Gould mentioned the Bering Straits. It is a fact that there had been several books written on the subject, including "A Star in the West" and "View of the Hebrews" that laid out the prevailing thoughts of the day.

- Second, it is inappropriate to impose a different standard of proof on my response than you do on your counter to which I'm responding.

I did not ask for proof. I only asked that you provide evidence that would negate that which I introduced. Exactly the same standards. I asked you to provide statements the witnesses or by Solomon that what he believed or understood about the lost tribes was different from what the prevailing ideas of the day were. I referenced Abner Jackson as one that indicated that Solomon's ideas were in line with the prevailing thoughts of the day. There are others also who mention the bering straits, such as Daniel Tyler and Lorin Gould.

-Third, my response included evidence and reasoning that pertained to that evidence. Nothing I said was irrational, that is without evidence and warranted reasoning. An ad hoc fallacious response is an irrational response to adverse facts in order to maintain a hypothesis, that’s not what is going on with my response.

The only thing you have offered as evidence is that Solomon had, at some point, seemingly become irreligious. Whatever his actual feelings, the statements of the witnesses do not show any evidence that Solomon had ideas any different than what were the prevailing ideas of the day. You are changing the definition of an ad hoc response a bit by introducing the word irrational. Your response was certainly ad hoc. It was created solely for the purpose of counteracting the evidence that I presented. It is fallacious because it presents no evidence that can be verified or refuted to support your alternate lots tribes theory.
In order for you to salvage your explanation, you must show that the witnesses were not talking about a the same type of lost tribes theory which Boudinot or Ethan Smith were espousing. You must show some evidence that Solomon entertained some radically different ideas about the lost tribes. That you have yet to do.

Glenn

[_marg]

- First...l your counter is subjective not open to objective verification. My counter also involves subjective interpretation of facts, but that’s simply the nature of this discussion. There are some facts and then those facts are open to interpretation to some degree. For this reason the ad hoc fallacy is not applicable.

Negative. My counter started with the witnesses themselves. I quoted Martha Spalding.

And your quote doesn't support your claim. Martha said "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."

That is not saying that Spalding intended to write a story about the lost tribes. If spalding had intended to write about the lost tribes it would have been what happened to the lost tribes from the point of being exiled and where they all went. But that's not what the witnesses described. They described his intent as being to describe where the moundbuilders and Am. Indian's ancestry came from. That's a different scenario that what you are claiming they said he wrote about.

If one goes to wiki for example and looks at what lost tribes is it says : "The Ten Lost Tribes of Israel refers to those tribes of ancient Israel that formed the Kingdom of Israel and which disappeared from Biblical and all other historical accounts after the kingdom was destroyed in about 720 BC by ancient Assyria.[1] Many groups have traditions concerning the continued hidden existence or future public return of these tribes."

Note it says all historical accounts after 720 B.C. were lost..that's it. There's nothing about God punishing the tribes for sinning which is what you once told me. You have been adding your understanding and version onto what the concept "lost tribes" must entail. While as wiki says "many groups have traditions concerning the continued hidden existence or future public return of these tribes", which really involves divine involvement, the evidence is Spalding was a biblical skeptic and didn't believe in any divine involvement with the biblical stories.

You accuse me of ad hoc ..adding after the fact assumptions to the evidence, but the reality Glenn is that it's your argument doing that. You are adding more to the facts that what the facts indicate. You are making the added assumption that to refer to "lost tribes" one must refer to them as a group exiled in 720 B.C. ..who with god's intervention travel enmasse to some far corner of the world as per Esdras. You don't allow for the secular historical understanding that they were tribes exiled in 720 B.C. and from the point of leaving Northern Israel all history of any of their whereabouts is unrecorded and lost.

You also have been downplaying the evidence written in spalding's own handwriting that he didn't believe in divine involvement in the biblical stories, by your suggestion that he may have become a skeptic after he'd written MSCC..(which the witnesses say was an earlier story).

- Second, it is inappropriate to impose a different standard of proof on my response than you do on your counter to which I'm responding.

I did not ask for proof. I only asked that you provide evidence that would negate that which I introduced. Exactly the same standards. I asked you to provide statements the witnesses or by Solomon that what he believed or understood about the lost tribes was different from what the prevailing ideas of the day were. I referenced Abner Jackson as one that indicated that Solomon's ideas were in line with the prevailing thoughts of the day. There are others also who mention the bering straits, such as Daniel Tyler and Lorin Gould.

Glenn the evidence that he was a biblical skeptic is evidence he wouldn't have believed in a theory regarding lost tribes that had a divine involvement. I'm not making it up out of thin air that maybe Spalding was a biblical skeptic. But your counter is imposing your beliefs onto the facts and making the assumption that Spalding wouldn't have viewed "lost tribes" from a secular perspective and nor would the witnesses ..who were describing what Spalding discussed with them. As far as the Bering strts that doesn't contradict what the conneaut witnesses described. And Abner Jackson was one witness who overheard in one day Spalding discuss with his dad...and he mentioned that Morse's geography was influential on spalding's beliefs. First of all what did Morse's geography say...have you looked into that? And secondly Abner is still remembering a "lost tribes"relevance in Spalding's story..which doesn't support your theories that the conneaut witnesses in their recall of "lost tribes" were confused or lying.

Your evidence Glenn ...is evidence which you put a subjective interpretation on. You've decided that an Ethan Smith story written a few years before the Book of Mormon was what the witnesses understanding of Lost tribes must entail. In doing so, you completely ignore that the witnesses were recalling what Spalding told them, and what his influence would have been on their understanding and that they were not discussing the various concept of "lost tribes" but were recalling Spalding's interpretation and understanding. .

-Third, my response included evidence and reasoning that pertained to that evidence. Nothing I said was irrational, that is without evidence and warranted reasoning. An ad hoc fallacious response is an irrational response to adverse facts in order to maintain a hypothesis, that’s not what is going on with my response.

The only thing you have offered as evidence is that Solomon had, at some point, seemingly become irreligious. Whatever his actual feelings, the statements of the witnesses do not show any evidence that Solomon had ideas any different than what were the prevailing ideas of the day. You are changing the definition of an ad hoc response a bit by introducing the word irrational. Your response was certainly ad hoc. It was created solely for the purpose of counteracting the evidence that I presented. It is fallacious because it presents no evidence that can be verified or refuted.
In order for you to salvage your explanation, you must show that the witnesses were not talking about a the same type of lost tribes theory which Boudinot or Ethan Smith were espousing. You must show some evidence that Solomon enteratined some radically different ideas about the lost tribes.

Glenn-"The only thing you have offered as evidence is that Solomon had, at some point, seemingly become irreligious.

response: That's strong evidence which you are downplaying to suit your purposes.

Glenn: "Whatever his actual feelings, the statements of the witnesses do not show any evidence that Solomon had ideas any different than what were the prevailing ideas of the day."

response: Of course if Spalding didn't believe in a divine connection with the Bible his ideas of lost tribes would differ to a religious person such as yourself who views "lost tribes" as God punishing a group for sinning by having the Assyrians attack and exile them and whatever other religious belief is attached to the lost tribes. And the witnesses were recalling Spalding's story and his discussions, not what you think were the prevailing stories popular at the time of the Book of Mormon's publication.

Glenn: "You are changing the definition of an ad hoc response a bit by introducing the word irrational. Your response was certainly ad hoc. It was created solely for the purpose of counteracting the evidence that I presented. It is fallacious because it presents no evidence that can be verified or refuted."

I'm not changing anything Glenn, you do not have a good understanding of ad hoc fallacy. Irrational means, not supported by evidence and reasoning. And I even specify that's what I mean by irrational. And that is exactly what happens in an ad hoc fallacy.

First an hypothesis is presented supported by verifiable evidence or is potentially supportable. A counter is made with facts which refute that evidence. And then a response is made to that counter, not by adding evidence but by changing the explanation which supports the original hypothesis and by doing so it negates the adverse evidence in the counter. There is no justification for the changed explanation, other than it serves the purpose of doing away with the adverse evidence in the counter. If it doesn't do so with evidence, and it is fallacious it can only do so by an irrational change in the explanation.

Ad hoc works well in situations involving testable verifiable hypothesis, it doesn't work well in situation involving subjective interpretation of words for example, such as your subjective interpretation of what "lost tribes" means. So I don't like accusing others of ad hoc such as what you are doing in these sorts of discussions. But take a look at what you are doing. You are changing the background assumptions. By downplaying what Spalding's note says, that he specifically does not believe in any divine connection with the Bible you are changing the assumptions after the facts to suit your purpose. You are arguing that he may have become a skeptic after he finished writing MSCC. This despite the fact anyhow, that the witnesses say he was writing MSCC before MF.

Notice Glenn you have no evidence that indicates while he was writing MSCC or MF that he was a not a biblical skeptic. So you do not apply the same standard of proof to yourself. You are actually denying what the evidence says, I haven't been denying the evidence. I'm denying your speculation, that Spalding and the witnesses must have understood the lost tribes account, as more than the historically accepted account of exiled tribes in 720 B.C.

Glenn: "It was created solely for the purpose of counteracting the evidence that I presented. It is fallacious because it presents no evidence that can be verified or refuted."

response: You are the one doing the creating..adding assumptions to the evidence which counteracts what the evidence indicates. Where is the objective evidence that Spalding understood the lost tribes account to be anything more than a secular historical appreciation?

I'm not the one also accusing others of ad hoc fallacy. But in ad hoc fallacy the counter must meet a burden of proof which overturns the original hypothesis. It's very important for the counter to have good evidence..it can't simply be a subjective interpretation of evidence for a ad hoc fallacy situation to occur. It's very important that the counter meets a burden of proof which successfully overturns the intitial hypothesis. Evidence which is open to subjective interpretation is not going to do that. A response to your subjective reasoning and interpretation of words such as what "lost tribes" must ..is obviously going to be after the fact of your counter, but that doesn't make a response fallacious..which is what you are trying to impose. You are fallaciously shifted the burden of proof when your argument hasn't met a burden of proof which overturns the initial hypothesis.

Glenn: In order for you to salvage your explanation, you must show that the witnesses were not talking about a the same type of lost tribes theory which Boudinot or Ethan Smith were espousing. You must show some evidence that Solomon enteratined some radically different ideas about the lost tribes.

You are missing a step Glenn, you have the burden to overturn the initial hypothesis. You have a burden to prove Spalding wasn't a biblical skeptic, and that the witnesses could not have understood a secular version of what "lost tribes" meant as per Spalding's discussions...that is exiled Northern Israelite tribes of 720 B.C. with unattached myths involving the divine or speculations where they went.

The initial hypothesis is that the evidence indicates Spalding was a biblical skeptic who did not believe any divine biblical involvement, that the Bible was completely man created. And that the witnesses were recalling Spalding's discussions and story which was intended to explain who the ancestors of the moundbuilders and Am Ind were ...which Spalding had them going back ancestrally to some people of the lost tribes..essentially connecting them by a blood line to the historical account of the lost tribes.

You have the burden of proof to over turn that, before accusing S/R theorists of not countering you with objective verifiable evidence. It's your speculation on how you interpret lost tribes or how you think the witnesses should have interpreted lost tribes or how you think Spalding should have interpreted and understood lost tribes which doesn't meet a burden to overturn the initial hypothesis warranted by the evidence, that Spalding would have appreciated a secular historical understanding of the concept "lost tribes".

You are trying to impose and restrict an understanding of lost tribes based upon what Ethan Smith and Boudinot wrote about, which entailed some historical account speculated of Lost tribes of Northern Israel traveling enmasse in 720 B.C. after being exiled and which supports a mythical speculation written in approx 100 A.D, in Esdras. You have no legitimate justification to impose these restrictions other than it suits the purposes of your argument which is to attempt to dismiss the statements of the Conneaut witnesses as being credible.

edit: I just read your second posted response which adds nothing new...this response addresses that post as well.

[_GlennThigpen]

And your quote doesn't support your claim. Martha said "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."

That is not saying that Spalding intended to write a story about the lost tribes. If spalding had intended to write about the lost tribes it would have been what happened to the lost tribes from the point of being exiled and where they all went. But that's not what the witnesses described. They described his intent as being to describe where the moundbuilders and Am. Indian's ancestry came from. That's a different scenario that what you are claiming they said he wrote about.

marge, how in the world can a statement that 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." not be about the lost tribes as American Indian ancestors? Of course some of the Indians also built the mounds.

If one goes to wiki for example and looks at what lost tribes is it says : "The Ten Lost Tribes of Israel refers to those tribes of ancient Israel that formed the Kingdom of Israel and which disappeared from Biblical and all other historical accounts after the kingdom was destroyed in about 720 BC by ancient Assyria.[1] Many groups have traditions concerning the continued hidden existence or future public return of these tribes."

Note it says all historical accounts after 720 B.C. were lost..that's it. There's nothing about God punishing the tribes for sinning which is what you once told me. You have been adding your understanding and version onto what the concept "lost tribes" must entail. While as wiki says "many groups have traditions concerning the continued hidden existence or future public return of these tribes", which really involves divine involvement, the evidence is Spalding was a biblical skeptic and didn't believe in any divine involvement with the biblical stories.

marge, you are dodging the question here again. We are not talking about anything in the wiki. We are talking about the literature in and around the times that Solomon lived and wrote, and the times of the witnesses. There certainly have been many ideas proposed for the lost tribes. And again, we are looking at the what the witnesses said about what Solomon was supposedly writing. We do not know when Solomon wrote that unfinished, unsigned letter. We do know that he was a preacher for a while. We do know that several of the wtnesses said that he was writing a lost tribes story. That is what we have to go on. You have produced no evidence that says that Solomon had any other idea.

You accuse me of ad hoc ..adding after the fact assumptions to the evidence, but the reality Glenn is that it's your argument doing that. You are adding more to the facts that what the facts indicate. You are making the added assumption that to refer to "lost tribes" one must refer to them as a group exiled in 720 B.C. ..who with god's intervention travel enmasse to some far corner of the world as per Esdras. You don't allow for the secular historical understanding that they were tribes exiled in 720 B.C. and from the point of leaving Northern Israel all history of any of their whereabouts is unrecorded and lost.

You also have been downplaying the evidence written in spalding's own handwriting that he didn't believe in divine involvement in the biblical stories, by your suggestion that he may have become a skeptic after he'd written MSCC..(which the witnesses say was an earlier story).

See my response above. I am adding nothing to the facts. I am only quoting the witnesses and reading the literature of the time.

- Second, it is inappropriate to impose a different standard of proof on my response than you do on your counter to which I'm responding.

I did not ask for proof. I only asked that you provide evidence that would negate that which I introduced. Exactly the same standards. I asked you to provide statements the witnesses or by Solomon that what he believed or understood about the lost tribes was different from what the prevailing ideas of the day were. I referenced Abner Jackson as one that indicated that Solomon's ideas were in line with the prevailing thoughts of the day. There are others also who mention the bering straits, such as Daniel Tyler and Lorin Gould.

Glenn the evidence that he was a biblical skeptic is evidence he wouldn't have believed in a theory regarding lost tribes that had a divine involvement. I'm not making it up out of thin air that maybe Spalding was a biblical skeptic.

See my response above.

But your counter is imposing your beliefs onto the facts and making the assumption that Spalding wouldn't have viewed "lost tribes" from a secular perspective and nor would the witnesses ..who were describing what Spalding discussed with them. As far as the Bering strts that doesn't contradict what the conneaut witnesses described. And Abner Jackson was one witness who overheard in one day Spalding discuss with his dad...and he mentioned that Morse's geography was influential on spalding's beliefs. First of all what did Morse's geography say...have you looked into that? And secondly Abner is still remembering a "lost tribes"relevance in Spalding's story..which doesn't support your theories that the conneaut witnesses in their recall of "lost tribes" were confused or lying.

I have not found the note in Morse's geography yet. But that is irreleveant to what Abner Jackson said in his statement. I did not say Jackson's statement contradicted the Conneaut witnesses. It just gave corroboration to what I said that the witnesses would have understood by a lost tribes story. As I said, for all we know, Solomon could have written a lost tribes story such as described by Abner Jackson, which entailed the mounds etc. We just do not have it. And that story is nowhere discernible in the Book of Mormon.

Your evidence Glenn ...is evidence which you put a subjective interpretation on. You've decided that an Ethan Smith story written a few years before the Book of Mormon was what the witnesses understanding of Lost tribes must entail. In doing so, you completely ignore that the witnesses were recalling what Spalding told them, and what his influence would have been on their understanding and that they were not discussing the various concept of "lost tribes" but were recalling Spalding's interpretation and understanding. .

My evidence is from the witnesses. Abner Jackson's statement rather indicates that Solomon's views at that time did not diverge from the prevailing ideas of the time and locale.

Notice Glenn you have no evidence that indicates while he was writing MSCC or MF that he was a not a biblical skeptic. So you do not apply the same standard of proof to yourself. You are actually denying what the evidence says, I haven't been denying the evidence. I'm denying your speculation, that Spalding and the witnesses must have understood the lost tribes account, as more than the historically accepted account of exiled tribes in 720 B.C.

marge, I do not have to provide evidence that Solomon was a skeptic. That is a red herring. I only have to produce what the witnesses said. He could have been one from his youth. But he was careful to keep it under cover. That is evidenced by the same unsigned, unfinished letter that you are trying to use to show that Solomon would have never written a lost tribes story such as the one that we have been discussing.

Such being my view of the subject I prefer my candle to remain under to remain under a bushel, nor make no exertions to dissipate their happy delusion

From your viewpoint, he would have written a story such as the one at Oberlin College. And, bingo, that is what he wrote. No dispute about that one.
But it does not matter what he may have actually felt underneath. It is the visible Solomon that we have to deal with. It is the Solomon that the witnesses talked with and understood. You have not shown anything from them that would support your thesis. The aggregate statements from the witnesses does not support your thesis.
You still have not introduced anything that negates the statements of those witnesses, except what you think that Solomon would have thought and what he would have written about. That is still ad hoc and fallacious because it goes against the evidence of the witnesses.

Glenn

[_marg]

Haven’t had a chance to look at this thread today. I moved your response to my question today, from the Jocker’s thread to here in case you might change your mind and respond.


Post reference from Jocker's thread: link

Hi Glenn,

I agree fully with everything Roger has said, so I won't repeat.

Could you please explain to me though, what you think the Conneaut witnesses understood by the term "lost tribes".

Marge, I am going to let it alone. I have tried to explain that from the very first, using the statements of the witnesses and the literature of the times, both before and concurrent with Solomin's time. We have different opinions, and I do not feel that I can persuade you any differently. So I am going to agree to disagree with you.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

I agree fully with everything Roger has said, so I won't repeat.

Could you please explain to me though, what you think the Conneaut witnesses understood by the term "lost tribes".

marge, I have been following the thread which from the link and noticed that you said that you originally bought into the idea that most people of the time would have believed in a lost tribes story pretty much as this. Assyria conquered the tribes dwelling in the Northern Kingdom of Israel around 723-721 B.C. and exiled the majority of them to somewhere in Asia. That is the Biblical history account.
The second part is the myths and legends that had arisen from the account in 2 Esdras about them going to a far country where never man had dwelt.
After the English began to colonize the Americas, especially North American continent in the 1600's various people brought forth the idea that the American Indians were descendants of the lost tribes that had emigrated to the Americas. Emigration via the Bering straits was the idea most discussed, and at the time, probably the only route discussed. The idea of a mass migration via the ocean was deemed too ridiculous to even merit serious discussion.

I note that you said you have read Fawn Brodie's "No Man Knows My History". If so, you might recall that Brodie mentioned that lost tribes theory as being the one prevalent and most widely believed during the period of time under scrutiny. I will quote an excerpt from it.

America's most distinguished preachers -- William Penn, Roger Williams, Cotton Mather, Jonathan Edwards -- had all espoused the theory. Edwards had even written a tract pointing out what he thought were likenesses between the Muhhekaneew Indian tongue and Hebrew. The historian H. H. Bancroft later wrote: "The theory that the Americans are of Jewish origin has been discussed more minutely and at greater length than any other. Its advocates, or at least those of them who have made original researches, are comparatively few, but the extent of their investigations and the multitude of the parallelisms they; adduce in support of their hypothesis exceed by far anything we have yet encountered." * Josiah Priest wrote in 1833 in his American Antiquities: "The opinion that the American Indians are descendants of the Lost Ten Tribes is now a popular one and generally believed."

Brodie cites examples of five publications which espouse that particular theory,
"Native Races, Vol. V, pp. 77-8. Among the early books discussing the subject are James Adair: The History of the American Indians (London, 1775); Charles Crawford: Essay upon the Propagation of the Gospel, in which there are facts to prove that many of the Indians in America are descended from the Ten Tribes (Philadelphia, 1799); Elias Boudinot: A Star in the West; or, a Humble Attempt to Discover the Long Lost Tribes of Israel (Trenton, 1816); Ethan Smith: View, of the Hebrews; or the Ten Tribes of Israel in America (Poultney, Vermont, 1813) Josiah Priest: The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed (Albany, 1825); Israel Worsley: A View of the American lndians, pointing out their origin (London, 1828). "

You now state that you do not believe that those Conneaut Witnesses would have necessarily believed in that particular theory because they seemed to be pretty intelligent, literate individuals. Let me point out to you that the writers of those publications were also very literate, intelligent, and highly educated.

So, other than that belief, do you have any indication from the writings of any of those witnesses, or the writings about any of those witnesses that any of them believed anything different?
Do you have anything to indicate that Solomon did not "for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel"
Do you have anything written about Solomon or the witnesses or by Solomon or the witnesses to denote that the following was not what they believed?

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

It is all well and good to postulate something different, but that postulations needs to be backed up by some evidence that what they were saying deviated in any significant way from the theories that were espoused by their contemporaries.

Glenn

[_marg]

marge, I have been following the thread which from the link and noticed that you said that you originally bought into the idea that most people of the time would have believed in a lost tribes story pretty much as this. Assyria conquered the tribes dwelling in the Northern Kingdom of Israel around 723-721 B.C. and exiled the majority of them to somewhere in Asia. That is the Biblical history account.

Glenn can you please quote my words to support the above as opposed to paraphrasing.

This is something I did say in a post in the early stages of our discussion on this: (sorry don't have the link)

"Well according to the myth, the tribes were sent North and then they scattered. But Spalding If I recall correctly had a keen interest in history, studied the Bible as well, did not accept the Bible as literally true. I believe his wife wasn't all that religious, I believe Aron Wright wasn't all that religious. Just as today we have people who go to church or give religion respect, it doesn't mean that buy into it all. People were skeptics back then, there is no reason to assume everyone had to or did buy into every myth related to the Bible.

So the argument you have made is that Spalding wouldn't have had any lost tribe go south to Jerusalem and as well he would have had them all travel as one large group at least initially and migrate as a large group to a distant land..per Esdras written in around 100 A.D..

But Spalding was writing an evolving story, he didn't buy into biblical myths and he had a keen interest in history. The Conneaut witnesses were exposed to his earliest version. So if spalding didn't accept the myth and at that time there were likely historical accounts just as today, that the Israelites assimilated after being exiled ...his story in order to tap into the imaginations of people wondering what happened to the exiled tribes might have been to take one or a few characters with an ancestry to a lost tribe who also went south to Jerusalem when exiled. The blood line would therefore still be from the lost tribe group exiled. It would not be the myth or an explanation where all the lost tribes went, but rather it would be an explanation that the mound builders were descendants from that blood line."

The second part is the myths and legends that had arisen from the account in 2 Esdras about them going to a far country where never man had dwelt.
After the English began to colonize the Americas, especially North American continent in the 1600's various people brought forth the idea that the American Indians were descendants of the lost tribes that had emigrated to the Americas. Emigration via the Bering straits was the idea most discussed, and at the time, probably the only route discussed. The idea of a mass migration via the ocean was deemed too ridiculous to even merit serious discussion.

Glenn what's your point? You say : "Various people brought forth the idea". So what? Religious people tend to have agendas associated with their religious beliefs which they are passionate about..anti-abortion, creationism, Intelligent design, racism against blacks who are inferior to whites per God's actions, antisemitism...

People who are passionate about their agendas who are writers are bound to write about those agendas.

Does that mean every religious person accepts all those agendas written by ever religiously motivated writer...even if lots of books are written on the subject...i.e. intelligent design/creationism?

I note that you said you have read Fawn Brodie's "No Man Knows My History". If so, you might recall that Brodie mentioned that lost tribes theory as being the one prevalent and most widely believed during the period of time under scrutiny. I will quote an excerpt from it.

America's most distinguished preachers -- William Penn, Roger Williams, Cotton Mather, Jonathan Edwards -- had all espoused the theory. Edwards had even written a tract pointing out what he thought were likenesses between the Muhhekaneew Indian tongue and Hebrew.

And she's talking about religious individuals ..preachers promoting their religious agenda. So what? Morse's geography in the early 1800's didn't push the lost tribe religiously motivated agenda...it wrote that Am. Indians were of Asian descent.

You avoiding acknowledgment ...that Spalding was a biblical skeptic. He considered the Bible completely man created ..with no divine entity a part of it. You also refuse to acknowledge the witnesses were talking about what Spalding wrote and what he explained to them.

by the way, if this myth was so popular and the witnesses would have understood it, then why would they mention Spalding had his characters leave Jerusalem? If this myth is so popular and they must have known it as you say, then to mention that Spalding's story was to explain Am Indians descended from lost tribes ..but have his characters leave Jerusalem.. apparently contradicts the myth they supposedly are so familiar with.

The Book of Mormon mentions lost tribes about twice..so there is no reason for them to think the Book of Mormon is about lost tribes.

The historian H. H. Bancroft later wrote: "The theory that the Americans are of Jewish origin has been discussed more minutely and at greater length than any other. Its advocates, or at least those of them who have made original researches, are comparatively few, but the extent of their investigations and the multitude of the parallelisms they; adduce in support of their hypothesis exceed by far anything we have yet encountered."

So what? "It's advocates" were passionate. Fundamentalist Christians and very religious individuals can be quite fanatical about ideas associated with their religious beliefs. It's the religious belief which is motivating most of the highly religious writers you cited who promoted the lost tribes myth inspired by Esdras.

* Josiah Priest wrote in 1833 in his American Antiquities: "The opinion that the American Indians are descendants of the Lost Ten Tribes is now a popular one and generally believed."

Josiah Priest again another highly religious individual with an agenda, a fictional writer who wants people to believe as he does, who wants people to buy his books and is therefore motivated to promote the idea that everyone believes what he's promoting.

Brodie cites examples of five publications which espouse that particular theory,
"Native Races, Vol. V, pp. 77-8. Among the early books discussing the subject are James Adair: The History of the American Indians (London, 1775); Charles Crawford: Essay upon the Propagation of the Gospel, in which there are facts to prove that many of the Indians in America are descended from the Ten Tribes (Philadelphia, 1799); Elias Boudinot: A Star in the West; or, a Humble Attempt to Discover the Long Lost Tribes of Israel (Trenton, 1816); Ethan Smith: View, of the Hebrews; or the Ten Tribes of Israel in America (Poultney, Vermont, 1813) Josiah Priest: The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed (Albany, 1825); Israel Worsley: A View of the American lndians, pointing out their origin (London, 1828). "

Any biblical skeptics in that list there Glenn? I looked through it and found other than James Adair they were all motivated by their religious agenda and highly religious. James Adair seems to have been giving an account from his personal experience of living with the Indians, but when I looked at his book, I saw no mention of lost tribes, Esdras, God belief (albeit I only looked briefly) but it seems he believed the Indians were of Jewish descent because( I believe) he thought their customs and language indicated that. So his agenda is not the same as the others you cite, it appears.

On the whole ..the side promoting and writing books about lost tribes are religious individuals promoting their religious agenda and beliefs. And the side without a religious agenda... is a scholarly well respected encyclopedia ( believe) Morse's Geography which wrote that the Indians were of Asian descent.

When you think about it, who was going to write books to counter those religiously motivated writers promoting the lost tribe myth? As that historian you cited pointed out that few did any research. .H. H. Bancroft wrote: "The theory that the Americans are of Jewish origin has been discussed more minutely and at greater length than any other. Its advocates, or at least those of them who have made original researches, are comparatively few

So what can someone countering write about in a whole book, it's not like they could counter with evidence and reasoning...enough to fill a book. There were no scientists at the with good evidence to establish where the Indians came from. The writers promoting lost tribes were not using evidence..they were using the Bible, their religious beliefs and speculations.

You now state that you do not believe that those Conneaut Witnesses would have necessarily believed in that particular theory because they seemed to be pretty intelligent, literate individuals. Let me point out to you that the writers of those publications were also very literate, intelligent, and highly educated.

Glenn you really should quote me..because you are misrepresenting my words. This is what I said "In addition the S/R witnesses on the whole strike me as rather literate intelligent individuals for the day. Spalding's interest in history and politics may have appealed to a select type of person ..those interested in books, history, politics which Spalding was apparently well versed with and discussed with others." In otherwords Glenn they probably were not adverse to views by Spalding which may have been unorthodox for the time...being as they willingly spent time with him and took an interest is his thoughts and writings.

I think if Spalding held unorthodox views stemming from his lack of belief in the Bible having nothing to do with a God...people with religious beliefs that are held to be literally true and which didn't coincide with his views would be less likely to be interested in what he had to say.

It's possible some of the witnesses believed in the lost tribe myth as promoted by writers in the day...but there are varying degrees of belief. From strongly believing something is virtually literally true to believing but not really very convinced. So where any of them stood we don't know. But their beliefs is not what they understood they were providing, they were providing what Spalding told them and what his story was about. And they DID NOT say as you so often have claimed that his story was a lost tribe story.

So, other than that belief, do you have any indication from the writings of any of those witnesses, or the writings about any of those witnesses that any of them believed anything different?
Do you have anything to indicate that Solomon did not "for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel"

Glenn because some highly religious individuals wrote and promoted an idea which was highly speculative and motivated because of their religious beliefs and agenda does not mean everyone else bought into it literally as true. What the historian you cited above pointed out was how fanatically those doing the promoting were and that they didn't do research.

With Spalding being well educated, had in interest in history and theology and didn't think a God had anything to do with the Bible...it would be strange indeed ..if he bought into the religiously motivated lost tribe myth promoted by a few religious writers.

Do you have anything written about Solomon or the witnesses or by Solomon or the witnesses to denote that the following was not what they believed?

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

And Abner jackson didn't personally discuss with Spalding he listened to a conversation his dad had with Spalding when Spalding visited for a day or so.

Abner is wrong about Morse's geography... so while Abner may have appreciated the lost tribe myth popularized by one or more of those religious writers you cited and may have heard Spalding mention lost tribes and made some assumptions....he's overhearing a conversation. Perhaps Spalding did mention Morse's geography..if so it wasn't to back up the "lost tribe myth..if in discussion it would be more likely used to counter the lost tribe myth. Why you keep citing Abner is beyond me. It seems Abner has a hazy memory of a discussion Spalding had with his dad...but it certainly doesn't prove Spalding bought into the myth . ..especially if Morse's geography was part of that discussion.

It is all well and good to postulate something different, but that postulations needs to be backed up by some evidence that what they were saying deviated in any significant way from the theories that were espoused by their contemporaries.

Glenn...that some highly religious individuals wrote from time to time about lost tribes per myth being ancestors of Am. Ind. is not evidence that everyone accepted that as literally true.

Spalding being educated in history and theology coupled with his rejection of the biblical God...had no reason to buy into any claim by religious individuals which were not evidence based but relied upon speculation about about passages in the Bible which were used to promote a myth. The witnesses were recalling Spalding's story and what he discussed with them.