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

[_Roger]

MCB:

If you think so-- I am coming to realize that we can't convert them all. Might as well retreat to my litle hidey-hole-- it will take generations. My project was unrealistically aimed at overnight miracles.

There are a lot of people out there that are more open-minded on this than either Glenn or Dan. The problem for us Spaldingists is not so much that advocates of opposing theories don't agree with us (which is to be expected), as that those who might be inclined to agree with us typically couldn't care less about who wrote the Book of Mormon. Among the minority who do care, it's much simpler to think in terms of a creation of Joseph Smith since he is obviously the central figure of Mormonism. Just to come to a basic understanding of what S/R proposes takes a decent amount of time and effort. Most people are content to just leave it with Smith and move on.

I guess I'm just weird in that the question, and the resulting debate, continues to fascinate me.

[_MCB]

Yeah-- I guess I am moving on.

[_GlennThigpen]

You do not accept them at face value, because there is no lost tribes story discernible in the Book of Mormon.

Actually no, that's you who does that. My point on that was that you make too big of a deal about the lost tribes and that your interpretation of what they would have meant is too narrow. And not only that, but again, Smith, & Co. had ample opportunity to change Spalding's story if it served their purposes.

You have to invent some story that bears no resemblance to the lost tribes and pretend that it suffices.

Huh? The simple fact is that the Book of Mormon presents a nation, or actually two nations developing from one family. If that family member was originally an escapee from Isreal at the time of the dispersal it could have been thought of as a lost tribes account. And again, the original Spalding manuscript could have been more of a lost tribes account, featuring Lehi and Nephi as heroes. But then Rigdon or Smith/Cowdery changed it. I know S/R critics don't like that, but the fact is, that is certainly well within the realm of possibility. The other possibility is that the S/R witnesses were lying. But why would they lie? And why would so many of them lie? And how did they all come to agree on their lies?

You have not been following the arguments in this debate very well. Your response still is without any supporting evidence whatsoever. We are not talking about what you may accept as a lost tribes story. You have to try to understand what the witnesses were talking about. As an LDS, my understanding of the lost tribes and where they are to day does not align with the belief that the lost tribes emigrated to the Americas and became the ancestors of the American Indians. But I pointed out, with references, that such was the prevailing idea among most of the Eastern U.S. at the time. I quoted one of the witnesses who stated emphatically that Solomon believed that prevailing notion and carried it out in his story. I quoted another witness that stated that Solomon had the emigration happen via the Bering Straits. The Bering straits idea was echoed by a couple of other witnesses.
You have provided no evidence, no references, no witnesses to support your assertion that those Solomon would have equated a small group of people from one tribe (who were not lost) the equivalent of several tribes. The lack of supporting evidence for an assertion renders it ad hoc and fallacious.

When a witness states that that "When Spalding divested his history of its fabulous names, by a verbal explanation, he landed his people near the Straits of Darien, which I am very confident he called Zarahemla," one would naturally expect to find Lehi and Nephi landing near the Straits of Darien. But that is not in the text of the Book of Mormon. It cannot even be inferred from the test of the Book of Mormon.

Which means you can't claim these witnesses were simply using the Book of Mormon to get their information!

And of course, the Book of Lehi was rewritten, wasn't it! And I think it was you who said: "It had to be so different that the adversaries could not challenge them." ; )

You are correct in that I cannot (and do not) claim that witness was getting his information from the Book of Mormon. John Miller was living in an area of Pennsylvania where Orson Pratt and Lyman Johnson came through on part of their missionary journeys in 1832. One of their meetings made the rounds of several local newspapers containing the details of Zarahemla, the Straits of Darien, and the march across the country "in a north east direction." Miller is the only witness who added that into their statements, and he was the only one of the witnesses known to have been in the area where the newspaper reports of the "Mormonite" preachers had provided almost the exact details that Miller made in his statement.

I know, I know, I can only use the statements of the witnesses when they agree with you and I cannot use them when they do not agree with you.

Well then, I see we are making progress!

See MCB?! There's still hope for Glenn. : )

There is no hope for me. I am biased. I am a TBM. And I will die blissfully unaware of the doom that is the fate of the universe as atrophy has it inevitable way.

Glenn

[_MCB]

Glenn;

Just so long as you don't condemn me for my ancestry, religion, place of birth, racial mixture, hearing impairment, and happiness in celibate status, I really don't care.

[_Dan Vogel]

Glenn;

Just so long as you don't condemn me for my ancestry, religion, place of birth, racial mixture, hearing impairment, and happiness in celibate status, I really don't care.

I notice that you aren't and never have contributed anything subsantive to this discussion.

[_Roger]

Glenn:

You are correct in that I cannot (and do not) claim that witness was getting his information from the Book of Mormon. John Miller was living in an area of Pennsylvania where Orson Pratt and Lyman Johnson came through on part of their missionary journeys in 1832. One of their meetings made the rounds of several local newspapers containing the details of Zarahemla, the Straits of Darien, and the march across the country "in a north east direction." Miller is the only witness who added that into their statements, and he was the only one of the witnesses known to have been in the area where the newspaper reports of the "Mormonite" preachers had provided almost the exact details that Miller made in his statement.

Can you provide your sources for this? I am particularly interested in how the Straits of Darien idea apparently came to be a part of the Pratt brothers missionary activities.

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn:

You are correct in that I cannot (and do not) claim that witness was getting his information from the Book of Mormon. John Miller was living in an area of Pennsylvania where Orson Pratt and Lyman Johnson came through on part of their missionary journeys in 1832. One of their meetings made the rounds of several local newspapers containing the details of Zarahemla, the Straits of Darien, and the march across the country "in a north east direction." Miller is the only witness who added that into their statements, and he was the only one of the witnesses known to have been in the area where the newspaper reports of the "Mormonite" preachers had provided almost the exact details that Miller made in his statement.

Can you provide your sources for this? I am particularly interested in how the Straits of Darien idea apparently came to be a part of the Pratt brothers missionary activities.

Here is the link:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH/miscoh02.htm

The newspaper article was published in Cincinnati, Ohio from a letter submitted by Benjamin Stokely, a resident of Mercer County Pennsylvania. Read the notes and follow the links to more articles that appeared in other newspapers, both local Pennsylvania and in New York. Evidently the "Mormonite" preachers stirred up some interest everywhere they preached. And it was Orson Pratt, but not Parly P. Pratt. Parley P. Pratt had preached in the Ohio region where Solomon did his deed but is not known to have espoused the Isthmus of Darien idea in his efforts.

I want to make a minor clarification. The "in a north east direction" was from John Miller's statement. The article said "commenced at the Isthmus of Darien and ended at Manchester" which is a northeast direction.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Thanks Glenn.

Although for some reason google can't access the link, it did have a cached copy without the images. It's interesting to note this sentence which has bearing on our previous discussion about the Anthon visit:

he therefore sent the plates to the city of New York to be translated by Professor Anthony, who could make nothing of them;

I'm curious how you reconcile that tidbit with Smith's 1838 account that has Anthon proclaiming Smith's translation the best thing since sliced bread?

Here's more:

Six hundred years before Christ a certain prophet called Lehi went out to declare and promulgate the prophecies to come; he came across the water into South America, who with others, went to Jerusalem [sic - Zarahemla?]: but there they were divided into two parties; one wise, the other foolish; the latter were therefore cursed with yellow skins; which is supposed to mean the Indians of the Rocky Mountains.

So how does Pratt know where Lehi's party landed, Glenn?

and

The last battle that was fought among these parties was on the very ground where the plates were found, but it had been a running battle, for they commenced at the Isthmus of Darien and ended at Manchester.

So Pratt is teaching that the battle commenced at the Isthmus of Darien and ended in New York! Some battle! Nevertheless, where is he getting this information, Glenn?

The use of the Mormonite Bible is to connect and fulfil the prophecies of Isaiah; it comes also to fulfil the Scriptures and to restore the house of Israel to their lawful rights. The servants of this religion will fish and hunt up Israel and put them into possession of their promised land

Sounds like locating lost tribes, doesn't it?

[_GlennThigpen]

Thanks Glenn.

The last battle that was fought among these parties was on the very ground where the plates were found, but it had been a running battle, for they commenced at the Isthmus of Darien and ended at Manchester.

So Pratt is teaching that the battle commenced at the Isthmus of Darien and ended in New York! Some battle! Nevertheless, where is he getting this information, Glenn?

This was Orson Pratt's theory. He did not have any inside information. There were many theories about where the Lehite party originally landed and where the events of the Book of Mormon actually played out. There still are many theories.

The use of the Mormonite Bible is to connect and fulfil the prophecies of Isaiah; it comes also to fulfil the Scriptures and to restore the house of Israel to their lawful rights. The servants of this religion will fish and hunt up Israel and put them into possession of their promised land

Sounds like locating lost tribes, doesn't it?

Actually no. I take it that you are not very familiar with the Bible either. You need to read Isaiah and understand what the Biblical prophecies about the restoration of Israel "to their lawful rights." Isaiah's prophecies are about the restoration of the lands of Ancient Israel to the Jews. The LDS feel that the 1948 creation of the State of Israel was the beginning of the fulfillment of those prophecies.

I did not respond to your other comments because they are tangential to my point. That point is that John Miller was living in an area of Pennsylvania where Orson Pratt and Lyman Johnson were preaching about the Book of Mormon and Orson Pratt was espousing his ideas as to where the Book of Mormon events took place and where the final battle wound up. The Isthmus of Darien, Zarahemla, the march "north east" from the Isthmus of Darien, the battles, were all in those newspaper accounts. John Miller was the only one of the Conneaut area witnesses to mention those particular details.

We are dealing with a set of probabilities here, since we have no definitive evidence. It does seem very probable that Miller was remembering bits and pieces from the 1832 stories by the missionaries rather than an 1811 or 1812 story by Solomon Spalding.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Glenn:

So Pratt is teaching that the battle commenced at the Isthmus of Darien and ended in New York! Some battle! Nevertheless, where is he getting this information, Glenn?

This was Orson Pratt's theory. He did not have any inside information. There were many theories about where the Lehite party originally landed and where the events of the Book of Mormon actually played out. There still are many theories.

So he just made it up out of thin air? No support for it? Just his imagination? And yet he's teaching it as though it were an official part of the story? That seems odd, don't you think? He's obviously not getting it from the Book of Mormon.... or... isn't it possible he got it from the Book of Lehi? Hmmm.

Sounds like locating lost tribes, doesn't it?

Actually no. I take it that you are not very familiar with the Bible either. You need to read Isaiah and understand what the Biblical prophecies about the restoration of Israel "to their lawful rights." Isaiah's prophecies are about the restoration of the lands of Ancient Israel to the Jews. The LDS feel that the 1948 creation of the State of Israel was the beginning of the fulfillment of those prophecies.

Sure, but now you need to think of what a 19th century Mormon would think. Obviously 1948 hadn't happened yet so you are superimposing your current belief onto theirs. They thought it was beginning in their day! The theory was that here in America we had discovered descendants of the lost tribes of Isreal (or as Martin Harris put it, lost sheep) and God was now going to gather them in a choice land--America--for an inheritance. This is what your early missionaries were teaching:

The use of the Mormonite Bible is to connect and fulfil the prophecies of Isaiah; it comes also to fulfil the Scriptures and to restore the house of Israel to their lawful rights. The servants of this religion will fish and hunt up Israel and put them into possession of their promised land

I did not respond to your other comments because they are tangential to my point.

It's not tangential to our discussion. It's pretty obvious that early on the missionaries were teaching that Anthon could not even decipher the characters (Just like Smith's 1832 account claims) but by 1838 he was pronouncing a translation of them the best he'd ever seen. That's a serious problem for the S/D theory Glenn.

That point is that John Miller was living in an area of Pennsylvania where Orson Pratt and Lyman Johnson were preaching about the Book of Mormon and Orson Pratt was espousing his ideas as to where the Book of Mormon events took place and where the final battle wound up. The Isthmus of Darien, Zarahemla, the march "north east" from the Isthmus of Darien, the battles, were all in those newspaper accounts. John Miller was the only one of the Conneaut area witnesses to mention those particular details.

So what? He obviously mentions them because Pratt was preaching the same things he'd been exposed to in Spalding's manuscript. That's why he mentions them. The larger question is where is Pratt getting this information? It's interesting that Jockers attributes his brother with creation of some of the Book of Mormon chapters.

We are dealing with a set of probabilities here, since we have no definitive evidence. It does seem very probable that Miller was remembering bits and pieces from the 1832 stories by the missionaries rather than an 1811 or 1812 story by Solomon Spalding.

No it doesn't. It simply means both. When Miller hears Mormon missionaries repeating things he had been exposed to in Spalding's novel, of course, he's going to point those things out and, of course, it's going to bring them fresh to his mind. You can't claim he got this from the Book of Mormon! But I can theorize that Pratt got it from the Book of Lehi through his brother! It's not an ad hoc response to negative evidence, it's positive evidence that fits nicely into an S/R framework. On the contrary, your response that Pratt pulled this stuff out of thin air is ad hoc. You have no explanation for why Pratt would do this, or under who's authority he was making these kind of statements in his official missionary efforts. The negative evidence that needs explaining is where did Pratt come up with this information? You can't respond to that.

Sorry Glenn! Nice try though! : )