122 replies to this topic

[Uncle Dale]

Bruce Schaalje, on 08 October 2010 - 12:34 PM, said:

Your scenario is still like Roger’s. You’re putting all kinds of restrictions
on me: what time period and types of writings and topics (transoceanic voyages)
and geographical locations I can consider.

OK then -- drop the New World geography. Use any story  with a voyage across
water that suits you -- Gilgamesh -- Odysseus, Aeneas, Noah, -- whatever.

And, if the time-frame I've suggesed is too great a restriction,
then use anything written before 1829. Anything written after
that date might possibly have been influenced by the Nephite Record,
so I don't think you can pull out some Orson Scott Card novel and
shout "Eureka!"

Quote

Then you say, now find a book with as many parallels to the Book of Mormon
as I have found. You are putting me in an impossible situation that in no
way replicates the actual situation of Hurlbut.

No -- I am holding you to your implied conclusion that the literary
parallels which people have cited, can be found in equal measure in
other texts than just the Oberlin manuscript. However -----> since
the Book of Mormon overlaps the Bible's stories in some places, I
suggest that you exclude the Bible and biblical pastiche fiction which
does not significantly overlap with "the more history part" of the BoM.

Quote

Hurlbut could have travelled almost anywhere in New England or Ohio
(because a theory about strangers around the house before translation
of the Book of Mormon and a plan to foist a new scripture on the unsuspecting
public could have been hypothesized for lots of early converts – Oliver Cowdery,
W W Phelps, Solomon Chamberlain),

You've lost me there, friend. Are you abandoning Matt Roper's conclusion,
that the Spalding claims really did begin with the preaching of Orson Hyde
and Samuel H. Smith, at Conneaut, before Hurlbut ever joined the Church?
That old dog won't hunt -- Hurlbut did not invent those claims.

Quote

he could have found any book that had parallels to any part of the Book of Mormon,
and it wouldn’t have necessarily had to deal with transoceanic voyages.

Yes -- he could have made selected extracts from Josephus, whose
"Wars" and "Antiquities" were published, bound up with the KJV and
Apocrypha, in some large Bibles of that day. But that is why I have
already asked you to avoid coming up with quasi-biblical narratives
which have absolutely nothing to do with the 1832 authorship claims.

Or -------> if you simply must use the Book of Jashur, or some such
oddity, then at least confine your finding to a non-Spalding category
of counting "beholds," "wherefores" and "It seemeth me goods."

Give us at least one book of this GENRE you keep alluding to.
If you don't like Southey, then try MacPherson, Clavigero, or even
Ethan Smith.

Quote

An equivalent assignment for me would be one in which you gave me a specific
book and asked me to find another book, published or in draft form before the
publication of the book in question, that had as many parallels as have been
proposed for the Spalding manuscript and the Book of Mormon. A conspiracy or
plagiarism or secret collaboration scenario could be cooked up for anyone, so
that can’t be part of the constraints. Also, to be perfectly frank, all I have
to find is a book that has a smaller number of parallels than Spalding theorists
cite, because I can hypothesize that there is another lost book written by the
same author that has several more parallels.

Heck -- if you're going to wander that far afield from the "genre" issue, you
can simply point out some book that resembles some other book, more closely
than Spalding and the BoM resemble each other. You can do that in ten seconds,
using "Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer."

Quote

I really don’t think this would be too hard of a task. I guess the task is a bit harder
now that you have found a second book with some parallels.

Please take 30 seconds and click on this link:
http://olivercowdery...ts/bookindx.htm

I've already done half your work for you. If you cannot find any
interesting Book of Mormon parallels, within the confines of "genre,"
that suits your purposes there -- then give up the task and spend
some time helping widows and orphans and visiting the sick.

Quote

So I guess my task is to find 2 books, each with some parallels to the
specified book. I still think this is not too hard.

Enjoy your search. Report back on any results that really should be
included in the footnotes for Criddle's projected S-R theory book.

Quote

OK, I’ll drop the word conspiracy. But I still haven’t gotten an answer to my question about why you think that the stylometric structure in the Book of Mormon is due to the Spalding-Rigdon-Cowdery-Pratt-Smith theory rather than a reflection of the internally claimed structure of the book (small plates, large plates, narrative, doctrinal). You don’t have to believe in angels for this, just that whoever wrote the book wrote in a consistent but different style in the large plates section than in the small plates section.

So I want to ask you straight out: Do you agree that both the PCA plots (including more than just the first two components if you want) and your own k-means clustering results are consistent with the internally claimed structure of the Book of Mormon?

I find it interesting that NONE of the 19th century writers' texts
plot within the Book of Mormon "cloud;" and that within the "cloud"
itself, the texts of Moroni, etc. plot out as extended archipelagos
and nebulous clouds themselves.

Some factor must obviously be at work, which pulls the "small plates"
chapters upward on the y-axis, and the "large plates" chapters downwards.
But whatever that "force" may be, it is not entirely consistent. It
appears to me that the Nephite Record splits roughly into three divisions,
the beginning (up to Enos); the middle (over to mid-3rd Nephi) and the end.

But, by "roughly," I mean just that -- and not precisely. Looking at
the pc1/pc2 chart and the pc2/pc3 chart, we see the oddities of chapters
being located outside of their logically expected domains. The reasons
for this distribution remain obscure, but it fades more and more with
the addition of each new pc#/pc# chart we add to the series.

You also produced a "heat chart," which I have replicated (minus the heat)
for a useful "similarities tree" of the Book of Mormon. I've included the
19th century authors' texts also, in an extended version). Examining that
"tree" we see the 19th century authors once again grouping closely together.
But the Nephite Record fragments into a number of "branches" on the tree,
so that contiguity and continuity in the narrative is rarely preserved in
the "similarities" groupings.

In the "Record of Helaman," which I've looked at more carefully than
the rest, we see the Alma 46-53 sequences of chapters split between
two different branches -- and those two branches are not nearly so
close to each other on the tree, as I had at first expected.

How can all of this (and more) be squared with a Smith-alone production?
Or with a Smith-plus-help production? Or with a Smith-translating-Nephites
production?

You tell me, and we'll have a discovery that might even make its way into
a Conference talk, one of these days.

UD


.

Edited by Uncle Dale, 08 October 2010 - 02:30 PM.

[Bruce Schaalje]

4truth, on 08 October 2010 - 01:08 PM, said:

And you seem to have missed the point as well... that's exactly what the Conneaut witnesses did. They made their identification of Spalding as the lottery winner before any possible measure was discovered--before Hurlbut removed anything from the trunk... in fact before he even knew about a trunk. In fact, some witnesses identified the lottery winner before Hurlbut was even an apostate.

  Roger,

  That’s not what the Conneaut witnesses did. And that’s not what you challenged me to do. Your challenge was:

4truth said:

    can you find another text written in the pre-1830 to 1800 time frame that contains battle parallels with the BOM many of which come in a sequential order? Once you have identified a text that meets that criteria, check to see if that same text also mentions seer-stones. There will also need to be parallels to a sea voyage (which should be easy enough), a wise teacher, stolen daughters, a fair amount of vocabulary overlap, an exchange of letters between kings, fraudulent stories invented by a king in order to provoke war, have a last, great battle with many parallels . . .

   Let me put your challenge in a different context. Can you find another book, like the Winds of War, that was written in the 1950-1970 time frame, that has a father named Pug and a son named _____, that involves one son in the Pacific theater and one son in the European theater, in which one son has a Jewish fiancee, that mentions a meeting between one of the main characters and Hitler, in which one of the characters is trapped in an enemy county when war is declared, and in which the once-used words are 40% the same between the two books. That was your challenge to me. I don’t think it’s very likely.

    Alternatively, consider this challenge. Can you find another book, sort-of like the Winds of War in just one way (it could be about a prominent family, it could be about war, it could be about politics, it could be about genocide, etc.)?  Of course you can identify such a book.

  Then, let’s look for parallels between the two books. Not the specific ones listed above, but any parallels. Let’s be creative in defining parallels. Let’s look for underlying themes, sequences in conversations, character motivations. Let’s have a whole group of people scour the two books for 180 years, and let’s make sure that the group includes at least a few people with personal vendettas against Herman Wouk for some reason.

  What is the probability that a long list of parallels could be found? I’d put my money on it (if I had any).

  

  Bruce

[Bruce Schaalje]

Uncle Dale, on 08 October 2010 - 02:20 PM, said:

I find it interesting that NONE of the 19th century writers' texts
plot within the Book of Mormon "cloud;" and that within the "cloud"
itself, the texts of Moroni, etc. plot out as extended archipelagos
and nebulous clouds themselves.

Some factor must obviously be at work, which pulls the "small plates"
chapters upward on the y-axis, and the "large plates" chapters downwards.
But whatever that "force" may be, it is not entirely consistent. It
appears to me that the Nephite Record splits roughly into three divisions,
the beginning (up to Enos); the middle (over to mid-3rd Nephi) and the end.

But, by "roughly," I mean just that -- and not precisely. Looking at
the pc1/pc2 chart and the pc2/pc3 chart, we see the oddities of chapters
being located outside of their logically expected domains. The reasons
for this distribution remain obscure, but it fades more and more with
the addition of each new pc#/pc# chart we add to the series.

  I’ll take this as a reluctant, qualified ‘yes’ to my question (Do you agree that both the PCA plots and your own k-means clustering results are consistent with the internally claimed structure of the Book of Mormon?).

  Part of the reason for the oddities of chapters ‘being located outside of their logically expected domains’ is that some chapters are very short. There’s a lot of noise associated with the positions of the small chapters. I think your idea about working with 2-page segments of the Book of Mormon instead of chapters is a good one.

  The principal components become less and less informative with order. That is, pc4 has less information about the spatial distribution than pc3, etc. After a few pc’s, they just reflect noise in the data and are not helpful. Also keep in mind as you look at various plots that you’re investigating a high dimensional cloud. Plots like pc3 vs pc2 are less informative than plots like pc3 vs pc1. Pc1 vs pc2 plus pc1 vs pc3 help you envision the data in 3 dimensions instead of 2. You might enjoy this little video about principal components.

  I actually have an idea as to why the data split roughly into the 3 divisions you mention. It’s one of the last things that John Hilton worked on before his untimely death 6 or 8 years ago. However, I’m going to talk about that in a different venue.

  Bruce

[4truth]

Bruce:

First of all, thanks for your responses. I especially enjoyed your last one. (I mean that sincerely.)

Quote

That’s not what the Conneaut witnesses did.

Bruce, with all due respect, that's exactly what they did. This is the point I keep trying to get Ben & Chris and others to see. As Dale has pointed out numerous times, Hurlbut did not invent the Spalding claims. And the testimony he gathered was recorded BEFORE he pulled anything out of any trunk. There is no reason that anything should have been pulled out of that trunk that even remotely resembled the BOM--much less an incomplete rough draft of less than 200 pages--and in fact that is exactly what critics of the S/R theory back in 1884 claimed when the manuscript was brought to light--there is no resemblance, said they, the dead horse is finally dead. But the witness testimony had been sitting there in Howe's book since 1834 and was recorded even earlier in 1833 before Hurlbut had discovered any manuscript. That is very significant.

So I'm not asking to you replicate a general phenomenon... I'm simply telling you the standard that has already been set by the lottery ticket winner that was predicted to win in advance. And I agree, there's no conceivable way such a thing could be replicated due to the number and caliber of qualifications it comes with.

Quote

And that’s not what you challenged me to do. Your challenge was:

Correct, I am making it easier on you to see if you can even get close. Uncle Dale has suggested something that qualifies as close. But can it meet all the qualifications Spalding's Roman story meets? I realize some of those qualifications require a subjective interpretation. But I haven't seen anything even close--other than the book Dale mentions. VOTH might be a contender, but even the parallels from the BOM to VOTH are of a more generic nature than BOM to Spalding.

Again, the problem is you & Ben can likely find something that comes fairly close, but I'd be willing to bet it's not going to be be able to come up a similar number of parallels on as wide a variety as I mentioned (and of course I left some out) and, more importantly, credible witnesses will not have claimed it's author wrote a book that is an even closer match to the BOM before there was anything even discovered by that author to compare it to.

Either there is a connection between Spalding and the BOM, or this is one really, really unlikely (and hence unduplicatable) situation--the mother of all coincidences.

Quote

Let me put your challenge in a different context. Can you find another book, like the Winds of War, that was written in the 1950-1970 time frame, that has a father named Pug and a son named _____, that involves one son in the Pacific theater and one son in the European theater, in which one son has a Jewish fiancee, that mentions a meeting between one of the main characters and Hitler, in which one of the characters is trapped in an enemy county when war is declared, and in which the once-used words are 40% the same between the two books. That was your challenge to me. I don’t think it’s very likely.

Alternatively, consider this challenge. Can you find another book, sort-of like the Winds of War in just one way (it could be about a prominent family, it could be about war, it could be about politics, it could be about genocide, etc.)? Of course you can identify such a book.

Then, let’s look for parallels between the two books. Not the specific ones listed above, but any parallels. Let’s be creative in defining parallels. Let’s look for underlying themes, sequences in conversations, character motivations. Let’s have a whole group of people scour the two books for 180 years, and let’s make sure that the group includes at least a few people with personal vendettas against Herman Wouk for some reason.

LOL. I got a chuckle out of that last line. You have to realize, Bruce, that Dale had no vendetta against Joseph Smith when he started looking into this. I don't even know that he has one now.

But your point is well taken. Ben has already been able to locate a decent set of parallels for specific aspects. I have to hand it to him in that he's come up with some specific responses that, when viewed individually, are impressive. But the problem is he can't tie it all together--meaning he can't find one single work that meets all the criteria set forth by Spalding's Roman story. And, like you, he says it's not fair of me to ask because the bar is set too (ridiculously) high. And, like you, he says, but I can come up with equally impressive parallels between two other unrelated books, just not the specific parallels you--Roger--(unreasonably) demand.

But that's not meeting the standard. The Spalding novel has set a standard. If, as you and Ben argue--or at least Ben argues--these types of parallels are meaningless because they literally happen all the time, then it should be possible to find a very similar grouping of interrelated parallels all coalescing in one pre-1830 text. And that text really should at least claim to be a translation of an ancient text that was found and translated by the author. This is the specific standard set by Spalding's Roman story. It's not something I'm making up to set the bar impossibly high, it's that that standard has been met and was predicted before it was brought to light.  

Quote

What is the probability that a long list of parallels could be found? I’d put my money on it (if I had any).

LOL! Well in that, we're in the same boat, my friend.

We can debate this till the Cowles fall over dead, but the bottom line here is that I do think the text itself supports the S/R thesis.

This may be a bit out of your area of expertise, but I was recently talking with Glenn about what I am convinced is Rigdon's theology in 3 & 4 Nephi. I think the S/R thesis makes the most sense for the question of why we find that material in the Book of Mormon. So can you give me a better explanation? Do you think we have that material in the BOM because:

1. Nephites were having the exact same religious discussions that Campbell and Rigdon were having pre 1830

...or....

2. Joseph Smith was deeply concerned about settling all those theological questions before he even met Rigdon and was undecided as to which church to join?

All the best.

[Glenn101]

4truth, on 08 October 2010 - 04:55 PM, said:

Bruce:

First of all, thanks for your responses. I especially enjoyed your last one. (I mean that sincerely.)



Bruce, with all due respect, that's exactly what they did. This is the point I keep trying to get Ben & Chris and others to see. As Dale has pointed out numerous times, Hurlbut did not invent the Spalding claims. And the testimony he gathered was recorded BEFORE he pulled anything out of any trunk. There is no reason that anything should have been pulled out of that trunk that even remotely resembled the BOM--much less an incomplete rough draft of less than 200 pages--and in fact that is exactly what critics of the S/R theory back in 1884 claimed when the manuscript was brought to light--there is no resemblance, said they, the dead horse is finally dead. But the witness testimony had been sitting there in Howe's book since 1834 and was recorded even earlier in 1833 before Hurlbut had discovered any manuscript. That is very significant.

Agreed Hurlbut did not "invent" the Spalding claim. However, his Conneaut witnesses show all of the earmarks of being led. Their statements, as pointed out by Ben, are so similar that more than a little leading is indicated. The fact that non of the Book of Mormon names described by those witnesses is present in the Oberlin manuscript is fatal to that theory.
The fact that all the Conneaut witnesses described almost exactly the same "historical" events generically, but left out many other striking historical events is also highly suspect.
The only item that half-way makes a Spalding connection plausible is the Jockers NSC study. Bruce has gone to great lengths to explain why the conclusions that were drawn from the data are flawed, but there are a few who either do not understand the import of the things Bruce has said, or think he does not know what he is talking about.
So we will have to wait for the peer reviewed article before those parallels once again bite the dust.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

4truth, on 08 October 2010 - 04:55 PM, said:

...
1. Nephites were having the exact same religious discussions that
Campbell and Rigdon were having pre 1830

...or....

2. Joseph Smith was deeply concerned about settling all those theological
questions before he even met Rigdon and was undecided as to which church to join?
...

You must not forget, Roger, that we Latter Day Saints are taught
from the cradle that the Gospel was "from the beginning;" that
is, Christianity has sprung up seven times on the earth, and each
time (save for the last) it has withered and died in universal
apostasy. In each of those seven dispensations the "one true church"
is the same as it is today.

We RLDS, as kids, were given Sunday School lessons in which Peter,
James and John were juxtapositioned along side Israel A. Smith
and his two counselors in the First Presidency. Enoch's congregation
was pictured gathered under a great cross -- Nephi and Lehi were
illustrated predicting that Jesus would be born of Mary at Jerusalem.

For a Latter Day Saint, it all flows together --- of course the Nephites
had Christian baptisms, and sang Christian hymns, and knew all about
John the Baptist, ere he was ever born.

No doubt the Jaredites quoted Paul's letters and the Book of Revelation.
Adam was immersed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and
took upon him the name of Jesus, when Palestine had not a single inhabitant.

So --- of course the ancient Nephites argued theology like Alexander Campbell;
but they also had godly prophets among them, to set those arguments to rest.
When Joseph Smith appeared upon the scene (with his trusty sidekick spokesman)
he too put latter day Campbellite arguments to rest.

And, could there be an eighth dispensation, Bruce's counterpart would be
challenging some geeky critic of future "restoration scriptures," and the
claims that the recovered record of the Lost Tribes was really written by
Dale Broadhurst back in the year 2012...

The more it changes, the more it stays the same.

UD

[Gervin]

Quote

Bruce has gone to great lengths to explain why the conclusions that were drawn from the data are flawed, but there are a few who either do not understand the import of the things Bruce has said, or think he does not know what he is talking about.

I fall into the third category of someone who will withhold judgement until they've read his published article.

Quote

So we will have to wait for the peer reviewed article ...

Oh! You're waiting for the same article.  

Quote

... before those parallels once again bite the dust.[/

You just act like you've read it.  Funny.

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale, on 08 October 2010 - 02:20 PM, said:

...

You also produced a "heat chart," which I have replicated (minus the heat)
for a useful "similarities tree" of the Book of Mormon. I've included the
19th century authors' texts also, in an extended version). Examining that
"tree" we see the 19th century authors once again grouping closely together.
But the Nephite Record fragments into a number of "branches" on the tree,
so that contiguity and continuity in the narrative is rarely preserved in
the "similarities" groupings....

A reduced-size image of the above-mentioned "tree." I can supply
a larger picture, if anybody is interested:



The texts list on the left hand side of the image is illegible
in the reduced-size graphic, so here it is in spreadsheet form:

http://sidneyrigdon....BS/BoMtree1.xls

It should be recalled that the relationships between the texts,
as depicted in the "tree" are pre-NSC analysis --- that is, the
calculations for which text most resembles some other text are
not made using the NSC classification nor the Delta methodology.

Two texts included in the same "node" bear a closer resemblance
(in terms of frequently occurring non-contextual word patterns)
than do any two texts NOT grouped within the same node.

Inside any particular node there are "branches." Two texts
joined near the left-hand side of the chart in a single branch
are relatively similar. This relationship can be best visualized
in the case of "Spalding03" and "Spalding02" -- which are actually
the same text, repeated in Jockers' study as a checksum control.
Both of those two "leaves" on the "tree" join at the zero marker,
because they are identical.

Two texts which line up near each other within a node, but are NOT
joined at a low comparison value (nearer the left-hand side of the tree)
are less alike than two texts joined in the same sub-branch of the node.
There are different possible ways to arrange these sub-branches within
a node, so do not count on my method as the best one.

UD

Edited by Uncle Dale, 08 October 2010 - 08:55 PM.

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale, on 08 October 2010 - 06:37 PM, said:

...
I can supply a larger picture, if anybody is interested

OK -- here's a zoom-in of the same textual similarities "tree."



The 19th century authors' texts are indicated on the left-hand
size of the chart, with short colored bars" Yellow for Cowdery,
Greenish-Blue for Pratt, and Bluish-Lavender for Rigdon.
Spalding is Pink.

The longer colored bars are BoM chapters' authorship attributions,
combining my own determinations for Spalding and Jockers' preliminary
attributions (all in Pink). The Long Brown bars represent Biblical chapters.

As can be seen, the Spalding authorship attributions (made long before
this "tree" was ever envisioned) more or less cluster in two groups.

This clustering effect may indeed be due to "Genre;" -- but, if so,
nobody has yet explained to me how "Genre" so markedly effects the
distribution of frequently used non-contextual words.

Recall the fact that this "tree" is constructed only upon the patterns
produced by the percentages and distributions of those words in the texts.

Uncle Dale

.

Edited by Uncle Dale, 08 October 2010 - 08:56 PM.

[4truth]

Glenn:

Quote

Agreed Hurlbut did not "invent" the Spalding claim. However, his Conneaut witnesses show all of the earmarks of being led. Their statements, as pointed out by Ben, are so similar that more than a little leading is indicated.

Even conceding (which I don't) that "his Conneaut witnesses show all of the earmarks of being led," so what? It's a moot point if you're willing to concede (as you just did) that Hurlbut did not invent these claims.

Quote

The fact that non of the Book of Mormon names described by those witnesses is present in the Oberlin manuscript is fatal to that theory.

You've stated this several times, but it's simply not correct. The only way it's fatal to the theory is if the Conneaut witnesses were all just a pack of rabid anti-Mormon liars, willing to say anything to bring Joseph Smith down. But if that's the case, then you've got a conspiracy to explain.

Quote

The fact that all the Conneaut witnesses described almost exactly the same "historical" events generically, but left out many other striking historical events is also highly suspect.

No it isn't. In the first place, you've mischaracterized. There is some overlap, sure, which is what we would expect due to shared experience. But there are plenty of unique elements in their testimonies as well. All you have to do is look at the first sentence of each statement to see variety. In the second place, the witnesses are describing a manuscript they were exposed to over 20 years in the past with elements of their memories being jogged by recent exposure to the BOM. Their testimonies are quite consistent with what we would expect from that. They are insistent that the lead characters were Nephi and Lehi. And that is consistent with what we would expect if either:

A. they had actually been exposed to Nephi and Lehi repeatedly as the lead characters in Spalding's novel

or

B. they were all lying through their teeth.

I don't see any room for compromise on this. The notion that Hurlbut implanted false memories into their brains but, by george, they believed they were telling the truth is ridiculous, IMHO.

Quote

The only item that half-way makes a Spalding connection plausible is the Jockers NSC study.

But Jockers wouldn't have even done a study if it weren't for the witnesses telling us as early as 1832 there was a connection.

Quote

Bruce has gone to great lengths to explain why the conclusions that were drawn from the data are flawed, but there are a few who either do not understand the import of the things Bruce has said, or think he does not know what he is talking about.
So we will have to wait for the peer reviewed article before those parallels once again bite the dust.

Yes, the peer review will be quite informative.

All the best.

[4truth]

UD wrote:

Quote

So --- of course the ancient Nephites argued theology like Alexander Campbell;
but they also had godly prophets among them, to set those arguments to rest.
When Joseph Smith appeared upon the scene (with his trusty sidekick spokesman)
he too put latter day Campbellite arguments to rest.

You know, Uncle Dale, if that's what they want to argue to explain those sections of the BOM, I'm fine with that. Trouble is, they seem to prefer silence.

Of course, they are free to believe whatever they want and I suppose it's a fair way to reduce the impact of what otherwise would be a weird coincidence by redefining it as something more akin to a cycle. In the same way they don't seem to have a problem with God predicting the arrival of Joseph Smith in the latter days through Nephite prophets as opposed to Joseph simply writing himself into the book.

The issue might die there at an impasse if there weren't other solid reasons to reject the orthodox version of how the BOM came to be. But in light of the fact that there is no archeological support for the existence of Nephites or their alleged reformed Egyptian; given that there are no ancient extra-BOM texts mentioning Nephites or any of their cities, given that there are no extant plates and even the alleged characters from those plates are disputed (plus a number of other reasons) I think it's safe to conclude Rigdon's theological debates paralleling Nephite debates is neither cyclical nor coincidental but rather quite suspect.

If we rule out the orthodox version, we're left with either Rigdon producing those sections or Joseph Smith. Not surprisingly, Jockers attributes them to Rigdon.

Until the Chris Smith's out there can show evidence that Joseph Smith was highly involved in the great theological debates of the mid to late 1820s and believed he had the answers to those controversies such that he could authoritatively write them into an emulation of a new Bible in order to produce ancient scripture to bolster his position, I conclude that Rigdon is indeed the more likely author of those sections.

All the best.

[Uncle Dale]

4truth, on 08 October 2010 - 08:57 PM, said:

Even conceding (which I don't) that "his Conneaut witnesses show
all of the earmarks of being led," so what?
...

We might also ask whether the BoM's "three witnesses" and its
"eight witnesses" were "led" by any designing prompter.

Why did they not each make out a separate certificate, in their
own words, if they were not "led?"

Hurlbut obviously accomplished something similar in late 1833,
in getting numerous witnesses in Manchester to sign a joint
statement. He did the same thing with some Palmyra witnesses

Interviewers "lead" witnesses. Larry King "leads" the President
of the Mormon Church, when appearing for a televised interview.

That's life.

But the LDS polemicists want to discredit the Conneaut witnesses
to the point that no subsequent testifiers are even offered up
for examination. If the Conenaut people were such liars, then so
might be Robert Patterson of Pittsburgh -- who testified to Spalding's
submitting to him a manuscript story written in the Biblical style,
which Patterson came to believe was the basis for the Book of Mormon.

But, If old Aron Wright, Henry Lake and John Spalding were Satan's
henchmen, in a devious attempt at destroying Christ's one true church,
then so might have been Redik McKee, Abner Jackson, and two dozen
other witnesses who added evidence after the Conneaut people were
interviewed.

Even an anti-Mormon like Dan Vogel takes that road --- why even look
at subsequent testimony, if we can be certain that the Conenaut people
were not telling us anything truthful?

Joseph Smith Jr., himself could come down from Heaven, in a swirl of
glory in the midst of General Conference, edging past the current
President of the Church on the podium and speaking into the microphone:
"Sorry, folks, Rigdon and Spalding wrote it!" and the LDS polemicists
would still be badgering the reputations and recollections of old-timers
in Conneaut, Ohio in the 1830s.

It's become the LDS "default" position --- Attack the witnesses and say
that Spalding only ever wrote one story in his life, which the Church
has published, and which belies the witnesses' testimony.

Case closed...

UD

.

Edited by Uncle Dale, 08 October 2010 - 09:57 PM.

[Uncle Dale]

4truth, on 08 October 2010 - 09:29 PM, said:

...
Until the Chris Smith's out there can show evidence that Joseph Smith was
highly involved in the great theological debates of the mid to late 1820s
and believed he had the answers to those controversies
...

He was a-workin' along that line, way back in '26, I'd reckon.
Weren't 'til he set himself up at Nauvoo that ol' Jo got it down
as pat as a riverboat gambler's draw to an inside straight, though.

Shucks, ol' Jo coulda been anything he'd set his mind to, if he'd
just gotten the itch to do it -- Rich man, Poor man, Beggar man, Thief.
Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor,
Gentleman, Ploughboy, Merchant, Chief. He was all o' them...

UD

.

Edited by Uncle Dale, 08 October 2010 - 09:58 PM.

[why me]

So let me see if I understand this: First we have rigdon stealing a spaulding manuscript, a manuscript that we do not have but believed existed. We do have a manucript but it was the wrong manucript. Second, we have rigdon inserting various text into the spaulding manucript. He inserted the religious parts among the text and of course that was not all, but mainly the religous parts. He slaves away doing this because he wants to create a new religion to grip the masses. Third, when he is finished he askes Smith, Cowdery, Pratt to also insert tbeir own text into the book. Now of course, no one is revising what spaulding wrote, they are just inserting text. And no one is revising what rigdon wrote, they are just inserting text. Fourth, the manucript is being carried around by all these people without a problem. And no rough drafts are left hanging around for someone to read. All are dutifully collected and destroyed. Or was there any rough drafts involved? If we are dealing with sidney's manucript, and all the others are adding to it, there must have been rough drafts since it would be impossible to just add text to the original. Fifth, when sidney stole the phantom manucript, how could he know that spaulding also did not have a copy kept for safe keeping? Did most writers at that time, only have one copy of their work in progress? And what about spauldings own rough drafts? Usually, people leave around rough drafts that they have been working on and not just the original. Just one page of a rough draft would have destroyed Rigdon.

And it would seem to me, that all the socalled authors of the book of mormon must have revised Rigdon's and spaulding's work that was already in the manucript when they added to the text. But I must say that the whole story of how the book came to be with a few authors in the 19th century is quite amazing. I am just surprised that no one saw this massive manucript being carried around...and without pages being lost or destroyed by fire, rain or snow. And for what end? To start a new religion?

[4truth]

why me:

Quote

So let me see if I understand this:

In a word: no.

[Uncle Dale]

why me, on 08 October 2010 - 09:56 PM, said:

So let me see if I understand this: First we have rigdon stealing a
spaulding manuscript, a manuscript that we do not have but believed
existed.

I doubt he bothered to "steal" anything. More likely he just copied
out the sections that interested him. His subsequent mentor, Alexander
Campbell used to hand-copy entire theological books. He was a penny-pincher
and Rigdon was a penniless apprentice tanner, but I'll wager both copied stuff.

Quote

We do have a manucript but it was the wrong manucript.

We even have a letter revealing Spalding's greatest desires
after college graduation; but it is the "wrong" letter to
prove he came up with a character named "Nephi." Why on
earth would anybody even think of preserving such trash?
It is a wonder that we have a full sentence in the guy's
handwriting. But, perhaps if you took the trouble to go
looking, you could find more than the two letters I found.

Quote

Second, we have rigdon inserting various text into the spaulding
manucript. He inserted the religious parts among the text and of
course that was not all, but mainly the religous parts.

I have a book I "insert" my random thoughts into. It is a
leather-bound Bible given me in the 1950s. The margins are
full with my jottings. So are the endpapers and the fly-leaf.
Some clever writer could probably make a book out of it all --
or at least a unique commentary upon the scriptures.

I suppose that any such "insertions" Rigdon made into any
pre-written pages in his keeping, were something similar --
his literary arguments for and against whatever was already
written on those pages. And stuff from his visions -- just like
he continued doing, on odd scraps of paper, right down to 1876.

Quote

He slaves away doing this because he wants to create a new
religion to grip the masses.

You are getting far ahead of yourself here. First he compiles
his occasional jottings, over a period of years -- say, 1818-1824 --
and then he is pressed into peddling Elder Cambell's new Bible,
which all the Reformed Baptist elders had to use and promote.
Then he writes his "Third Epistle of Peter" in biblical style.

All along, he sees that Campbell's so-called "Restoration" is never
going to set the stage for the Second Coming and the Millennium. If
Bro. Alexander has his way, Sidney will never see Christ face-to-face
this side of the veil.

Quote

Third, when he is finished he askes Smith, Cowdery, Pratt to also
insert their own text into the book.

You keep racing ahead of yourself. First of all, Sidney has to
meet young Joe the Seer and be overawed to encounter such a visionary
as himself -- the only other man on earth who can unseal the secrets
prepared before the foundations of the heavens and the earth.

And, having once found this choice seer, Sidney has to win his trust
and friendship -- not an easy nor a quick task.

Quote

Now of course, no one is revising what spaulding wrote, they
are just inserting text.

Oh, I suppose that Sidney had retained enough fragments of old Solomon's
scribblings that he could at least re-construct the murder of Laban,
the divine gift of the Liahona, and the stormy ocean passage to America.
True -- 116 pages of Spalding were lost forever, but Sidney and the Saints
knew that each and every Gospel dispensation was very much like all the rest.
With Oliver's divining rod to guide them -- and Joe's peepstone to confirm
what they had first of all "worked out" in their minds, a burning in the
bosom was not far off. Nephite history didn't have to be perfect; it only
had to be faith-promoting. Anything that leads to Christ is truth, you know.

Quote

And no one is revising what rigdon wrote, they are just inserting text. Fourth,
the manucript is being carried around by all these people without a problem.

No doubt Pratt became weary of all that carrying about -- but when he found
that Joe had lost 116 pages, the "problems" of toting manuscripts about paled
in comparison to the "problems" of re-writing so much missing Nephite history.

Quote

And no rough drafts are left hanging around for someone to read.

Not much -- or else the Saints of 1828 could have reconstructed the
missing 116 pages without much effort. The rough drafts probably ended
up in the outhouse, for the most part -- that, or the Harmony fireplace.

Quote

All are dutifully collected and destroyed. Or was there any rough drafts
involved? If we are dealing with sidney's manucript, and all the others
are adding to it, there must have been rough drafts since it would be
impossible to just add text to the original.

How would you and a group of two or three friends accomplish such a
task today -- if you chose not to use e-mail and computer word-processing?
Yes, it would be tedious and problematic --- but not impossible.

Quote

Fifth, when sidney stole the phantom manucript, how could he know that spaulding
also did not have a copy kept for safe keeping?

It probably did not matter to him. He put his faith in God and assumed
all would work out for the best. Silas Engles was dead. J. H. Lambdin was
dead. The Patterson brothers had split up. Spalding's widow was long-gone.
The old stories of preColumbian America were truths belonging to nobody,
and to everybody. Like Indian legends. They were up for grabs.

What Rigdon did not (evidently) know, was that Spalding had shared his
story with folks in Amity, Washington, and Conneaut. Had Rigdon known
such facts, he might have been more cautious in retaining names like
Kishkumen and Helorum.

Quote

Did most writers at that time, only have one copy of their work in progress?
And what about spauldings own rough drafts? Usually, people leave around rough
drafts that they have been working on and not just the original. Just one page
of a rough draft would have destroyed Rigdon.

Spalding re-cycled his rough drafts. We can see discarded hunks of one of
them, crossed out and re-written in the Oberlin manuscript itself. But
Rigdon knew that keeping pages written in his own handwriting would prove
a problem. I do not suppose that a single such "Nephite Record" page was kept,
after it had served its intended purpose.

Quote

And it would seem to me, that all the socalled authors of the book of mormon must have revised Rigdon's and spaulding's work that was already in the manucript when they added to the text. But I must say that the whole story of how the book came to be with a few authors in the 19th century is quite amazing. I am just surprised that no one saw this massive manucript being carried around...and without pages being lost or destroyed by fire, rain or snow. And for what end? To start a new religion?

Not to start a new religion -- but to correct Alexander Campbell, in restoring
the only true religion.

Blame it on Alexander -- much of this was his fault.

UD


.

Edited by Uncle Dale, 08 October 2010 - 10:37 PM.

[Uncle Dale]

4truth, on 08 October 2010 - 10:05 PM, said:

In a word: no.

You asked earlier about which parts of the Book of Mormon
resemble Spalding's writings.

I'll reproduce the bottom my my previously featured "tree"
of BoM textual similarities.

As you can see, the "Record of Helaman" chapters near
the end of Alma are split between two different "nodes"
on the tree. This seems odd to me, since most of these
same Alma 43-44, 46-53 chapters cluster near each other
in various different chartings.

Perhaps we'll have to re-read the Book of Mormon, with
this new "tree" in hand, skipping from chapter to chapter,
based upon what it is telling us, in order to find answers.



UD

[Glenn101]

Gervin, on 08 October 2010 - 05:56 PM, said:

You just act like you've read it.  Funny.

I've read the prepublication draft.

Glenn

[why me]

Uncle Dale, on 08 October 2010 - 10:33 PM, said:

I have a book I "insert" my random thoughts into. It is a
leather-bound Bible given me in the 1950s. The margins are
full with my jottings. So are the endpapers and the fly-leaf.
Some clever writer could probably make a book out of it all --
or at least a unique commentary upon the scriptures.

I suppose that any such "insertions" Rigdon made into any
pre-written pages in his keeping, were something similar --
his literary arguments for and against whatever was already
written on those pages. And stuff from his visions -- just like
he continued doing, on odd scraps of paper, right down to 1876.

UD

I still see a problem. We have a manuscript---the phantom spaulding manucript and then we have Rigdon's manuscipt. In Rigdon's manuscript we have spaulding and rigdon with rigdon making insertions with his inkwell and feathered pen in the margins. Or do we just have the phantom spaulding manuscript with rigdon making insertions in the margins? Sooner or later spaulding's manuscript will need to be revised and rewritten for rigdon to include his writings in the manuscript. And then, if we include oliver and joseph, more rewritings and revising. All with inkwells and feathered pens.

Your random thoughts are margined in the margins with a ball point pen. Please sit down and use an ink well and feathered pen and let me know what happens. And then, begin to write the book of mormon with feathered pen and passing it around to others, allowing them to add text in the margins with a feathered pen or rewrite the text with a feathered pen and pass it back to you for approval. Eventually, spaulding's work will begin to disappear with every addition since it would need to be rewritten to fit the new additions.

My point: this is a painful process for writing a book based on someone else's manuscript. Not to mention ink blots and ink spills etc. I just don't see how it can be done...without leaving traces of the work behind for seeings eyes. The rough drafts will be a killer not to mention ink on the fingers. And yet, JS managed to keep it all a secret when he had the manuscript as he read and made additions with feathered pen in hand.

Edited by why me, 09 October 2010 - 07:35 AM.

[why me]

4truth, on 08 October 2010 - 10:05 PM, said:

why me:



In a word: no.

Well, maybe you can explain to me just how all this was done with feathered pen and inkwells, having the manuscipt passed around for others to make additions and corrections, with rough drafts and ink blots galore. And rewriting the text over and over again...And yet, maintaining the secret from roving eyes. We are dealing with a manuscript with well nigh to a thousand pages of feathered pen ink.