More Book of Mormon Studies

[Uncle Dale]

...

why you seem to

...

I may seem to do many things. I'm sure my wife thinks

I can solve any problem having to do with household plumbing.

But it only "seems" that way. I am not a plumbing expert

and the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit does not

extend so far as to allow me to automatically discern the

hearts and minds of far-off internet participants.

I spent two years advocating for our Republican Governor

here in Hawaii, and then voted for her rival from another party.

Such stuff indeed makes one a hypocrite -- and I feel very badly

about it. I wish I could rectify my thoughts and actions, when

it comes down to sustaining our local party politics.

But I cannot -- I'm a true sinner.

At least I extend the thought that you are probably no worse

than I am, in such things. That is a guess; but it is also a

studied opinion.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

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.

...

I've reproduced the same colored bars on the simpler BoM tree,

derived from Bruce's "heat chart."

As can be seen, the Spalding-attributed chapters do cluster,

but not all together in one spot. The major portion of the

Record of Helaman that I've attributed to Spalding (Alma 46-53)

divides into two clusters -- both in the "blue family" of the

Book of Mormon Chapters Tree, but so widely separated as to

make me wonder why Alma 46-53 does not hold together, as a

unitary text, in this particular chart.

Any ideas?

UD

[4truth]

Glenn:

I do not "rail" against any other poster. I disagree with some and when I do, I try to present my reasons carefully and rationally. I do not take any disagreement with me personally and only engage the arguments that are presented.

Which is why I enjoy sparring with you.

[Kevin Christensen]

Ask the scientists of the world, not me.

For example, if the theory is offered, that iron melts

at 1538 degrees Celsius -- that theory can be tested and

either verified or refuted.

If the theory is offered, that Nephites are real -- that

theory can be tested and either verified or refuted.

This ignores, of course, all sorts of things from Kuhn on how general theories are tested, but nevermind for now.

The reason I quoted Kuhn on the importance that theory permit puzzle formulation and solution. A general theory regarding the existence of Nephites, say, presents all sorts of puzzles for those inclined to try.

1 Nephi describes a journey across the Arabian desert. The details can be tested against the actual Arabian desert, as the Astons and Potter and Wellington and a few others have done. Of course anyone can say, "There are no Nephites, and therefore no point, because the angel story is absurd, and besides there was that NCS article in a peer reviewed journal about Spalding and Rigdon." The Arabian desert evidence may not settle the question of whether Nephi existed, but the existence of the accurate details presents its own puzzle. Not just Nahom, but a complex of interlocking details. Whatever theory of the Book of Mormon an investigator chooses ought to recognize the existence of that puzzle, and to be comprehensive and coherent, ought to account for it.

The point is while I can't bring the angel into the lab for testing, I can test the eyewitness details. Indeed, I don't need the angel. The existence of the angel story is a different part of the overall picture. And the solution to that local puzzle, like the melting temperature of iron, is just a small part of a larger picture, say a General theory of physics. The melting temperature of iron does not verify or falsify a theory about pangeia, though is ultimately does have some relevance.

Such verification cannot be confined to the sectarian

literature published by a church, or by its members

for the use of that church.

As you may recall, Oxford University Press published one of my essays. I even mentioned Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and God and angels.

Even if a true statement is made within that church's

publications, confirmation must eventually come from

scientists in general -- not merely from church members.

And this will no doubt be made available in next years Big Book of What to Think.

You have not given me a place to begin a scientific inquiry

in the matter of Nephites either being historical or fictional.

Joseph Smith already did that when he published the Book of Mormon. You and I both began there. You've been chasing your set of witnesses, testing their claims in your way. The process is ongoing.

They are obviously one of those two things. If "real," then

a scientific inquiry can only use the evidence and assertions

of a church membership as a beginning point for testing.

The best LDS scholars go way beyond what they learned at church.

In nearly 200 years of publicizing this matter, the church

still has not convinced scientists

Yet we produce an awful lot of scientists per captia. Interesting. And the higher the educational level, the higher the activity level. That is an interesting puzzle.

and non--sectarian scholars

that Lehi was real, that Nephi was real, that Mulek was real,

You know about Mulek being named in the Hebrew Bible? Right?

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=12&num=2&id=324

that Zarahemla was real, that reformed Egyptian was real, or

even that the golden plates were real.

If you're suggesting that modern scientists begin their examination

of these matters by reading the publications of Mormons -- then

how should scientists test those Mormon claims, to determine

whether or not Nephites were real?

How about reading the Book of Mormon in ways that do not put an existential distance between them and the actual narrative, the descriptions of events, places, culture and human behavior? How about testing the Book of Mormon exactly the way that Renaissance scholars evaluated texts? Place them in the historical and cultural context that they purport to represent, and see how well they fit, in light of current knowledge? We can't very well test texts in light of the knowledge of a hundred years from now. So we have to do the best we can with what we have, which happens to be a lot more than anyone in the world had in 1826-29, whoever you think responsible.

Science does not recognize claims for the supernatural. At the most,

it can examine the outcomes and results of what others claim were

supernatural events. Scientists cannot consult spirit mediums to

determine whether the Aztec nation ever existed.

Apply the same question to Aztecs, or Mandans, or Natchez.

How does Science go about determining if these reported societies

were real?

UD

Brant Gardner talks about using the same methods that William Dever uses in studying the backgrounds of the Bible. Nibley talks about how Schliemann sought Troy. Learn the context to which the text belongs, and then read it against that context.

In the New World, we could start looking for horse bones and steel swords and books. But since the Sidon is mentioned far more often than horses in the Book of Mormon, and is much bigger, and much easier to find. Much easier to find, it turns out, than Spalding's phantom manscript about Nephi, Lehi, and the lost 10 Tribes, but no religious content. (Odd, that...)

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park

[Uncle Dale]

...

In the New World, we could start looking for horse bones and steel swords and books.

Unless horses=deer and steel swords=obsidian studded clubs, as some LDS have

asserted. -- But I think you are now on the right track.

Let's consider a similar problem that scientific research has solved --

that of the Philistines. Were the Philistines real or fictional? There was

no clear-cut answer to that question for centuries. Finally some cultural

and linguistic hints led archaeologists and other scholars to the area

around Gaza. Eventually the Philistines were discovered -- or, rather,

evidence for their remains was discovered. The main problem being, that

the Philistines had, in the end, so merged into the general Palestinian

population as to be unrecognized in later centuries.

Gaza ceramic types matching those then current on Cyprus provided a big hint,

as did some lingering names matching those of ancient Mycenae. In time

the scientists knew better and better what to look for, and now we can

consult the encyclopedias to seek maps of where the Philistines were living

before King David's time, and thereafter.

Verification of the Philistines as a real people did not require any

supernatural investigation. Although the Bible tells part of their

story, interweaving natural and supernatural accounts, it was not

necessary that the discoverers of the Philistine evidences be Jewish

or believers in the Jewish scriptures. The scientists who verified

Philistine occupation of Palestine (the two words are related) did

not all convert to Judaism, just because they proved an important

part of the Bible to be true history (told from a Jewish perspective).

The same path to discovery might be applied to the Nephites. If they,

like the Philistines, eventually blended into the local population,

then it would be necessary for scientists to discern their remains

before that amalgamation became total. ---- That is, if Nephites and

their supposed "records" were as real as the Philistines were.

But since the Sidon is mentioned far more often than horses in the Book

of Mormon, and is much bigger, and much easier to find. Much easier

to find, it turns out, than Spalding's phantom manscript about Nephi,

Lehi, and the lost 10 Tribes, but no religious content. (Odd, that...)

...

I was told in RLDS Sunday school, that the reason the Sidon is not mentioned

in later Nephite writings, was because it was buried and obliterated by

Christ, in the great destructive earthquakes he caused to happen in conjunction

with his descent to the temple at Bountiful.

Did my Reorganized LDS teachers lie to me? Is the Sidon still flowing

today, into the Sea East?

If so, then that would be an interesting discovery -- but not one that

proved "Nephites" true. It might be a beginning though.

If our projected team of scientists sets out today, to examine the evidence,

should they also be allowed to look at Matt Jockers' 2008 Word-print study?

Because I suspect such an examination is already underway, as we converse here,

UD

.

[Bruce Schaalje]

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

Roger,

I

[Kevin Christensen]

Unless horses=deer and steel swords=obsidian studded clubs, as some LDS have

asserted. -- But I think you are now on the right track.

Let's consider a similar problem that scientific research has solved --

that of the Philistines. Were the Philistines real or fictional? There was

no clear-cut answer to that question for centuries. Finally some cultural

and linguistic hints led archaeologists and other scholars to the area

around Gaza. Eventually the Philistines were discovered -- or, rather,

evidence for their remains was discovered. The main problem being, that

the Philistines had, in the end, so merged into the general Palestinian

population as to be unrecognized in later centuries.

Gaza ceramic types matching those then current on Cyprus provided a big hint,

as did some lingering names matching those of ancient Mycenae. In time

the scientists knew better and better what to look for, and now we can

consult the encyclopedias to seek maps of where the Philistines were living

before King David's time, and thereafter.

Verification of the Philistines as a real people did not require any

supernatural investigation.

Bingo. Verification of the specific details of the Book of Mormon account does not require supernatural investigation. The angel is not on trial. The details of the text are.

That leads to the next questions. Close reading, and context for interpretation.

Although the Bible tells part of their

story, interweaving natural and supernatural accounts, it was not

necessary that the discoverers of the Philistine evidences be Jewish

or believers in the Jewish scriptures. The scientists who verified

Philistine occupation of Palestine (the two words are related) did

not all convert to Judaism, just because they proved an important

part of the Bible to be true history (told from a Jewish perspective).

The same path to discovery might be applied to the Nephites. If they,

like the Philistines, eventually blended into the local population,

then it would be necessary for scientists to discern their remains

before that amalgamation became total. ---- That is, if Nephites and

their supposed "records" were as real as the Philistines were.

And that is the situation as Terryl Givens put it to Oxford University Press for By the Hand of Mormon.

I was told in RLDS Sunday school, that the reason the Sidon is not mentioned

in later Nephite writings, was because it was buried and obliterated by

Christ, in the great destructive earthquakes he caused to happen in conjunction

with his descent to the temple at Bountiful.

Did my Reorganized LDS teachers lie to me? Is the Sidon still flowing

today, into the Sea East?

Did you ask for chapter and verse for those specific details of the destruction? You'd have had to wait a long time.

Hugh Nibley's LDS teachers told him that the Rocky Mountains were formed during the destructive events in 3 Nephi. What he noticed is that those teachers were not reading the text carefully. In Since Cumorah, Nibley dismissed their teachings as naive. And since then, other commentators have pointed out that Nibley's assignment of the destruction to earthquakes was naive, because quakes do not last that long. But volcanic events do. See Bart J. Kowallis,

[Bruce Schaalje]

I've reproduced the same colored bars on the simpler BoM tree,

derived from Bruce's "heat chart."

As can be seen, the Spalding-attributed chapters do cluster,

but not all together in one spot. The major portion of the

Record of Helaman that I've attributed to Spalding (Alma 46-53)

divides into two clusters -- both in the "blue family" of the

Book of Mormon Chapters Tree, but so widely separated as to

make me wonder why Alma 46-53 does not hold together, as a

unitary text, in this particular chart.

Any ideas?

UD

I have a couple of ideas.

First, I feel sort-of violated (but not shocked) that you would remove my labels from my dendrogram and put, of all things, attributions from the crazy Jockers-Criddle study.

Second, just so that everyone reading this will know, here are some of the comments I included when I first posted this graph:

A few words of warning. Some of the chapters were extremely short (e.g. the early Moroni chapters), so they might have weird and random word usage patterns just because of their size. The descriptions were pretty arbitrary

[Glenn101]

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.

It is not a concession. That is something that has been acknowledged pretty much from the first, even in the 1800's that Hurlbut got his idea from somebody. Else he would not have been scouring the area looking for people to talk to about it. The witness leading is not a moot point. Until Hurlbut showed up there is no contemporary witness statements about specific Book of Mormon to Spalding parallels. None of the missionaries who worked the area reported any confrontations with any of the people in the area over any suspected Spalding connections. There is a difference between general suspicions and specific names and events. These specifics seem to have been induced by Hurlbut's coaching because the Amity witnesses do not bring up "and it came to pass", lost tribes , Lehi, Nephi, Jerusalem, travel by land and sea, Lamanites, Nephites, splitting up into two factions, wars to extinction, etc. The main thing Amity witness Joseph Miller remembers is the Amilicites marking their foreheads red to distinguish themselves from their enemies. Re**** McKee, another Amity witness said that he had an indistinct recollection of the passages Joseph Miller had referred too. That was the only specific similarity they mentioned. The only one. They both averred that they had read the Book of Mormon and both averred they had read or heard read Spalding's romance. Can you provide a logical, evidence based reason that the two Amity witness listed did not provide a description that included any of the events, names, etc. that the Conneaut witnesses insisted were part and parcel of Spalding's romance? Another Spalding brother, Josiah, did not recollect that Solomon's romance was like the Book of Mormon in any particular. But he was well advanced in age when he made that statement.

Glenn in a previous post: 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.

Roger, there should be little doubt that the Oberlin manuscript is the manuscript that the Conneaut witnesses read or heard read. If Spalding did start and finish another manuscript, it would seem to have been sometime after January of 1812 if the letter on which Spalding wrote page 132 is any evidence. Can you provide a logical evidence based explanation for an earlier start for a second manuscript? Without that evidence, the Conneaut witnesses are impeached by the Oberlin manuscript's lack of corroboration. I don't know what the state of mind of Conneaut witnesses were. Easy, maybe even willing to be led comes to mind. The church was not exactly popular among some circles in the Conneaut area. Read a few of the statements by some of those people when friends and relatives joined this new religion.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...

but not shocked

...

That's good. I feel that we are slowly getting to know each other.

It has not been totally smooth relationship -- but fascinating ones

rarely are. I can always go back and make changes to on-line materials.

In a forum such as this one, such changes automatically retroact back

through all their thread appearances. So, I can make changes, if you

wish. But then again, I'd be hiding my true interests from you, if I

did not occasionally take a risk of offending -- that's the nature of

these sorts of discussions.

At least you and I converse, at times. You'll not get that contact

from others from whom you've solicited responses. It's Roger and me,

I'm afraid -- and neither of us knows a standard deviation from the

mean, from.... well, from whatever.

The striking thing to me is that the clusters due to the

stylometric measurements conform very well to the internally claimed

structure of the book.

Perhaps so. I've always wanted somebody to go through the flash-backs

in Mosiah, and explain it all to me by chapter and verse. Your charts

(and my re-vampings) are doing a better job of that for me, than could

Graceland University BoM profs (if any still exist on that hallowed campus).

Basically, the texts cluster by small plates historical, large plates historical,

small plates doctrinal, large plates doctrinal, and Isaiah/Malachi.

Perhaps so. But paradigms tend to be overthrown when they do

not account for the small details at their fringes. Euclidean

geometry makes perfect sense to me -- but I'm told that it

provides a limited view of spatial relationships. So, I wouldn't

go carving any axioms into granite just yet.

My working theory is that the explanations (both external and

internal) for our Nephite Record have a relative integrity.

That does not mean, however, that such explanations tell the

WHOLE story of what "by the gift and power of God" might mean.

You know my theories and interests in advance -- and, so far at

least, they have been flexible enough to cannibalize discoveries

both from the traditionalists and the Brodieites.

We shall see where our explorations take us.

Did I mention that I feel a bit honored to be discussing such

things? Perhaps I did not. I would not want you to think I was

buttering you up, for some devious future purpose.

Uncle Dale

[4truth]

Bruce:

I

[noel00]

I was watching Charlie Rose interviewing some neuroscientists and marvelled at how much we know about the brain now. We all have these beliefs in angels, stones in hats, funny translations, adams alter in missouiri. We get challenged on this we work out some answer which satisfies some awkwardness that we feel. What happens to our neurons when this happens. Some scholars of repute are dealing with this S/R issue. I see on both sides people get snarky. What has Jockers got to lose if he is wrong? Just goes back to the drawing board and starts again. If Bruce S is wrong and Jockers right, then Bruce has years of attendance in a church, extended family to deal with, if he accepted he was wrong.Do scholars ever really just look for the truth no matter what it might do to their cherished beliefs?

[Glenn101]

I was watching Charlie Rose interviewing some neuroscientists and marvelled at how much we know about the brain now. We all have these beliefs in angels, stones in hats, funny translations, adams alter in missouiri. We get challenged on this we work out some answer which satisfies some awkwardness that we feel. What happens to our neurons when this happens. Some scholars of repute are dealing with this S/R issue. I see on both sides people get snarky. What has Jockers got to lose if he is wrong? Just goes back to the drawing board and starts again. If Bruce S is wrong and Jockers right, then Bruce has years of attendance in a church, extended family to deal with, if he accepted he was wrong.Do scholars ever really just look for the truth no matter what it might do to their cherished beliefs?

We can expand that last question to include everyone human. When cherished beliefs color the methodology and conclusions of scholars and scientists, the results will naturally be skewed. However, that work will be publicly viewed and subject to correction by others. Since there will be people from several different viewpoints viewing any one case, skewed results will usually corrected over the course of time. In the case of the Jockers study, Bruce has suggested changes or extensions to the methods used to correct for some flaws he sees. It does not matter what his cherished beliefs are, he, like Jockers, is confident enough in his work to put up for peer review and publish it for the world to jump on. Bruce's work has not shown the Jockers study to be totally incorrect. If Bruce is correct, Jockers will not have to go back to the drawing board and start over. He will just have to make some changes.

The academic community is hardly immune from "cherished beliefs" either, although they may not be religious beliefs.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

As can be seen, the Spalding-attributed chapters do cluster,

but not all together in one spot. The major portion of the

Record of Helaman that I've attributed to Spalding (Alma 46-53)

divides into two clusters -- both in the "blue family" of the

Book of Mormon Chapters Tree, but so widely separated as to

make me wonder why Alma 46-53 does not hold together, as a

unitary text, in this particular chart.

Any ideas?

Let's look at just part of the Alma 46-53 sequence that I've been

talking about, in this and other threads.

According to the BoM chapter similarities "tree," Alma 48-51

still do cluster together in the "turquoise" branch of the

"blue branches" of that tree, as first constructed by Bruce.

Going back to my own, extended "tree," we can also locate

Alma 48-49 clustered, in a branch there that I colored yellow --

and Alma 51-52 clustered nearby in another yellow branch.

Putting all of this together, I think we can safely say that

the modern chapter divisions of the "Record of Helaman," which

we call Alma 48 and Alma 49 belong together, as the probable

writings of a single author:

But, before we jump to that conclusion, let's also look at the

details for the pc2/pc3 chart:

We there see Alma 48, Alma 49 and Alma 50 clustered near each other.

This mutual proximity holds together when me move from looking

at the pc2/pc3 chart, over to looking at the pc1-alone:

In that depiction of the data, it is Alma 48-49-50 which again group

tightly together. On the x-axis this clustering is to be expected,

since they are sequential texts. But their icons congregating on the

y-axis is the important factor we need to consider here.

This charting exercise all began with the pc1/pc2 chart, so let's

look at that one again also:

and

and

Here is a detail from the lower portion of the Book of Mormon "cloud" --

As can be seen there, the dots Alma 48 and Alma 49 again plot close together,

and cluster with Alma 50.

Alma 48 and Alma 49 comprise the last part of the old Alma XXI chapter

in the 1830 Book of Mormon -- so let's also look at my chart for that

part of the Record of Helaman:

While those BoM sections overlap Solomon Spalding's at a relatively

high degree (see line graph: 92% to 94%), it is the shared phraseology

with Spalding that should really catch our attention here.

Selecting from a long list of repeated, shared word-strings, the

"matches" count for old page 360 (now printed as part of Alma 49),

has the highest reading on the chart -- 26 matches on a single BoM page.

The following page 361 is not far behind, with 14 matches --- far above

the reading for a typical Book of Mormon page/chapter. The other 1830

BoM pages also show up on the chart as sharing significant phraseology

with Spalding.

Before we leave this part of our examination, let's take one final look

at the 2008 Jockers authorship attributions for this part of the BoM, here:

Out of the 19 chapters of the "Record of Helaman," modern chapters

48 and 49 score among the four highest percentages for Spalding. So,

they once again have something in common.

Not only do Alma 48 and 49 score high in Jockers' Spalding authorship

attributions, they are also among the "purest" of his charted bars for

that particular author-candidate, being colored red (for Spalding)

throughout almost their entire height. That is to say, the secondary

authorship attributions for these two BoM chapters are relatively

insignificant.

Having examined Alma 48-49 from numerous different perspectives and

by several different methods, I think it is safe to say that their

purported authorship by a single writer in the Book of Mormon is

correct. Whether we call their author "Helaman-edited-by-Mormon,"

or "Mr. Spalding," matters not so much as does their evident

relatedness and literary homogeneity.

If LDS students of the Book of Mormon are looking for a reliable

section of that text to "word-print," in order to establish at

least one Nephite contributor to the book, then I suggest joining

Alma 48 and Alma 49, as representing the writings of a single person.

If that amalgamation does not produce a text sufficiently lengthy

for word-print derivation, then perhaps Alma 50 can also be added in,

for a longer writing sample.

Anybody interested in pursuing this? Because -- if the Mormons decline

the study, I can assure you that a Craig Criddle (or a similar critic)

will take on the effort, in expectations of charting that same word-print

throughout the Book of Mormon, and comparing its results to the 2008

and 2010 Jockers authorship attributions for Mr. Spalding.

Uncle Dale

.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Anybody interested in pursuing this? Because -- if the Mormons decline

the study, I can assure you that a Craig Criddle (or a similar critic)

will take on the effort, in expectations of charting that same word-print

throughout the Book of Mormon, and comparing its results to the 2008

and 2010 Jockers authorship attributions for Mr. Spalding.

...

I can more or less anticipate what will be forthcoming, along these lines.

In the near future a researcher will re-run the 2008/2010 Jockers testing

of Book of Mormon authorship by Delta and NSC classification methodology --

but in this development of the continuing study Spalding, Rigdon, etc. will

not be featured as the primary author-candidates.

Instead, a few "voices" from the 1830 Book of Mormon text will be isolated

and compared, via computerized word-printing, with the entire book, chapter

by chapter.

My recommendation of incorporating the "voice" from Alma 48-49, will be

adhered to, and a word-print derived from that portion of the BoM (or perhaps

from those and a couple of adjacent chapters). By including the "Preface" to

the 1830 edition, Joseph Smith can also be included as an author-candidate.

The computerized testing can be run with (and without) the inclusion of

word-prints from Isaiah, Matthew and Malachi. Or -- perhaps these three

"voices" can be used as controls of some sort, in the testing.

Probably two or three additional "Nephite" voices can also be word-printed,

and their data added to the mix.

By following this pattern in selecting the author-candidates, the recent

criticism of methods involving writers not already known to have been

contributors to the Book of Mormon can be bypassed.

The results of this sort of testing will produce data tables and charts

functionally equivalent to Jockers' earlier productions, but, of course,

with a different set of author-candidates.

If LDS explanations of the text are correct, then Joseph Smith's "voice"

should then appear ONLY in the Preface, at a high degree of probability

(say, 98-99%) and in all other parts of the Book of Mormon it should

either be negligible (say, 1-2%), or constant (as a translator's admixture

of some moderate proportion).

The Alma 48-49 "voice" should plot out within the confines of the

"Record of Helaman" at some high degree of probability -- and then

drop off to very low percentages for all the remaining BoM chapters.

We should NOT see it re-appear in such spots as in Mosiah, Ether, or

at he the beginning of the Book of Alma.

IF, HOWEVER, THE ALMA 48-49 "VOICE" SUBSTANTIALLY DUPLICATES JOCKERS'

MANY BoM CHAPTERS' SPALDING AUTHORSHIP ATTRIBUTIONS ---- THEN A THORNY

PROBLEM WILL EMERGE FOR THE MORMONS.

I predict all of this happening in the next 36 months (that is, if Bruce

has not anticipated this sort of event, and run his own tests already).

Uncle Dale

.

[4truth]

Glenn:

It is not a concession. That is something that has been acknowledged pretty much from the first, even in the 1800's that Hurlbut got his idea from somebody. Else he would not have been scouring the area looking for people to talk to about it.

Maybe not from you, but it is a widespread mistaken idea and an easy one for critics to latch on to.

The witness leading is not a moot point. Until Hurlbut showed up there is no contemporary witness statements about specific Book of Mormon to Spalding parallels. None of the missionaries who worked the area reported any confrontations with any of the people in the area over any suspected Spalding connections. There is a difference between general suspicions and specific names and events. These specifics seem to have been induced by Hurlbut's coaching because the Amity witnesses do not bring up "and it came to pass", lost tribes , Lehi, Nephi, Jerusalem, travel by land and sea, Lamanites, Nephites, splitting up into two factions, wars to extinction, etc. The main thing Amity witness Joseph Miller remembers is the Amilicites marking their foreheads red to distinguish themselves from their enemies. Re**** McKee, another Amity witness said that he had an indistinct recollection of the passages Joseph Miller had referred too. That was the only specific similarity they mentioned. The only one. They both averred that they had read the Book of Mormon and both averred they had read or heard read Spalding's romance. Can you provide a logical, evidence based reason that the two Amity witness listed did not provide a description that included any of the events, names, etc. that the Conneaut witnesses insisted were part and parcel of Spalding's romance? Another Spalding brother, Josiah, did not recollect that Solomon's romance was like the Book of Mormon in any particular. But he was well advanced in age when he made that statement.

I think that observation coupled with Ben's presents a reasonable argument for some possible coaching by Hurlbut, yes--at least in the form of Hurlbut allowing subsequent witnesses access to John and Martha's statements, or possibly asking them questions based on their statements. But there is a huge difference between coaching and outright lying. Again, if the lead characters in Spalding's Manuscript Found were named Nephi and Lehi, this is exactly what we would expect witnesses to remember after having their memories jogged 20 years later. Regardless of any possible dependence of one statement on any of the others, their almost uniform insistence on Nephi and Lehi rather than Lobasks and Hamboon (or whoever) is the key point. The witnesses are either lying or telling the truth. There is no middle ground. They are not giving false accounts that they believe to be true.

With regard to Joseph Miller and Redck Mckee's testimony not being specific enough for you, they both still claimed the same thing as was claimed by the Conneaut witnesses--that the BOM resembles the Spalding manuscript they were exposed to. So, again, either they are knowingly lying or telling the truth.

And while Miller and McKees' statements did not mention Nephi and Lehi, Abner Jackson did:

"Spaulding frequently read his manuscript to the neighbors and amused them as he progressed with his work. He wrote it in Bible style. 'And it came to pass' occurred so often that some called him 'Old Come-to-pass."... The Book of Mormon follows the romance too closely to be a stranger. In both many persons appear having the same name, as Maroni, Mormon, Nephites, Laman, Lamanites, Nephi, and others. Here then we are presented with Romance, second, called the Book of Mormon, telling the same story of the same people, traveling from the same plain in the same way, having the same difficulties and destination, with the same wars, same battles, and same results, with thousands upon thousands slain. Then see the Mormon account of the last battle, at Cumorah, where all the righteous were slain.... How much this resembles the closing scene in the 'Manuscript Found!

Of course this also supports what Matilda Mckinstry says about the manuscript. The alleged names, then, become critical. Either so many witnesses are just making this up, or there was a second manuscript with the right names on it.

Roger, there should be little doubt that the Oberlin manuscript is the manuscript that the Conneaut witnesses read or heard read.

On the contrary, the evidence is that it was not.

If Spalding did start and finish another manuscript, it would seem to have been sometime after January of 1812 if the letter on which Spalding wrote page 132 is any evidence. Can you provide a logical evidence based explanation for an earlier start for a second manuscript?

Page 131 contains the story and it's back, page 132, contains the unfinished letter. Page 133 & 134 are missing with the story continuing seemingly uninterrupted at page 135. The letter references the date January, 1812, suggesting that the 37 pages coming after page 132 were written after that date.

It is possible that is exactly what occurred. While the second manuscript (entitled Manuscript Found) was awaiting a publication decision, Spalding may have gone back to work on Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek. If he wrote for his own amusement, why couldn't he continue with a previous manuscript? In fact the missing pages 133 & 134 immediately following the letter, suggest that is likely what occurred. If Spalding stopped working on MSCC (the Roman Story or the Oberlin Manuscript) at page 131 at the point when he decided to start a second manuscript using the Biblical style, then MSCC was likely laying around with the blank pages already numbered at the top. Someone needed a piece of paper and started writing the letter, not realizing Spalding's story was on the other side. When that fact became apparent, the letter was abandoned and blank pages 133-134 were used instead. The manuscript may have sat for some time, months or even years, before Spalding again took up writing on page 135 after January 1812. There is no clear indication of when Spalding stopped working on MSCC in favor of MF or whether he continued to work on both simultaneously. The fact that pages 133 & 134 are missing but that the narrative picks up at page 135 seemingly uninterrupted, strongly suggests a gap in time from page 131 to 135. That gap in time could be large.

That is an evidence based speculation as plausible as yours. The man was in poor health and did not lead an active life at that point. Instead he wrote a lot.

Without that evidence, the Conneaut witnesses are impeached by the Oberlin manuscript's lack of corroboration. I don't know what the state of mind of Conneaut witnesses were. Easy, maybe even willing to be led comes to mind. The church was not exactly popular among some circles in the Conneaut area. Read a few of the statements by some of those people when friends and relatives joined this new religion.

It seems unlikely that anti-Mormonism drove them to sign statements they knew to be fraudulent. It seems unlikely that Hurlbut would elicit such specific charges from them without being confident he was onto the truth and that finding the writings of Spalding would back up their statements.

It seems even more unlikely that once Hurbut discovered (only) MSCC he would then trumpet that discovery in the New York papers as having accomplished his mission.

The case you are making here is certainly the most rational anti-S/R case to be made (in my opinion) but in light of all the statements, the character of the witnesses and subsequent evidence, it seems unlikely to me.

All the best.

[Glenn101]

I think that observation coupled with Ben's presents a reasonable argument for some possible coaching by Hurlbut, yes--at least in the form of Hurlbut allowing subsequent witnesses access to John and Martha's statements, or possibly asking them questions based on their statements. But there is a huge difference between coaching and outright lying. Again, if the lead characters in Spalding's Manuscript Found were named Nephi and Lehi, this is exactly what we would expect witnesses to remember after having their memories jogged 20 years later. Regardless of any possible dependence of one statement on any of the others, their almost uniform insistence on Nephi and Lehi rather than Lobasks and Hamboon (or whoever) is the key point. The witnesses are either lying or telling the truth. There is no middle ground. They are not giving false accounts that they believe to be true.

It is not just Nephi and Lehi. It is all of the other things that are so common, the lost tribes (which is not in the Book of Mormon}, the land and sea travel, Jerusalem, etc. But then you say,

With regard to Joseph Miller and Redck Mckee's testimony not being specific enough for you, they both still claimed the same thing as was claimed by the Conneaut witnesses--that the BOM resembles the Spalding manuscript they were exposed to. So, again, either they are knowingly lying or telling the truth.

But they did not mention Nephi and Lehi, which you said was "exactly what we would expect". But what we have seen is more probably what you would see from people whose memories were influenced more by a recent reading of the Book of Mormon with Hurlbut's help. Have you done any research on witness leading and tampering?

And while Miller and McKees' statements did not mention Nephi and Lehi, Abner Jackson did:

Of course this also supports what Matilda Mckinstry says about the manuscript. The alleged names, then, become critical. Either so many witnesses are just making this up, or there was a second manuscript with the right names on it.

Miller's and McKees's statements also did not mention any of the names, events of the Conneaut witnesses. However, you said that we should expect a lot of overlap from a shared experience, i.e. the "Manuscript Found".

Abner Jackson's statement was given in 1880. This was long after Howe's "Mormonisn Unvailed" had hit the stands with all of its allegations and the Conneaut witnesses statements. And he lived in the Conneaut area.

And the McKinstry statement. Her memory was a wonderful thing. It defied the norm and got better with age. In an interview in 1839 she had not read the Book of Mormmon, could not remember any of the names from her father's manuscript, but in 1880 remembered Nephi, Lehi, Maroni. Strange.

On the contrary, the evidence is that it was not.

Page 131 contains the story and it's back, page 132, contains the unfinished letter. Page 133 & 134 are missing with the story continuing seemingly uninterrupted at page 135. The letter references the date January, 1812, suggesting that the 37 pages coming after page 132 were written after that date.

It is possible that is exactly what occurred. While the second manuscript (entitled Manuscript Found) was awaiting a publication decision, Spalding may have gone back to work on Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek. If he wrote for his own amusement, why couldn't he continue with a previous manuscript? In fact the missing pages 133 & 134 immediately following the letter, suggest that is likely what occurred. If Spalding stopped working on MSCC (the Roman Story or the Oberlin Manuscript) at page 131 at the point when he decided to start a second manuscript using the Biblical style, then MSCC was likely laying around with the blank pages already numbered at the top. Someone needed a piece of paper and started writing the letter, not realizing Spalding's story was on the other side. When that fact became apparent, the letter was abandoned and blank pages 133-134 were used instead. The manuscript may have sat for some time, months or even years, before Spalding again took up writing on page 135 after January 1812. There is no clear indication of when Spalding stopped working on MSCC in favor of MF or whether he continued to work on both simultaneously. The fact that pages 133 & 134 are missing but that the narrative picks up at page 135 seemingly uninterrupted, strongly suggests a gap in time from page 131 to 135. That gap in time could be large.

That is an evidence based speculation as plausible as yours. The man was in poor health and did not lead an active life at that point. Instead he wrote a lot.

It Matilda Davison had remembered two manuscripts of novel length, you might have a point. She and her daughter both only talk about one. Neither of them talk about Solomon doing a rewrite. And they were living in the house with him.

It seems unlikely that anti-Mormonism drove them to sign statements they knew to be fraudulent. It seems unlikely that Hurlbut would elicit such specific charges from them without being confident he was onto the truth and that finding the writings of Spalding would back up their statements.

You need to read what some of the many anti-mormons have published on momonism over the years. You will find much that is outright lies.

It seems even more unlikely that once Hurbut discovered (only) MSCC he would then trumpet that discovery in the New York papers as having accomplished his mission.

Yet, he did not accomplish his mission, and wrote back to Davison that the manuscript would not be published because it did not read as expected. Hurlbut was not viewed as reliable person, even among those with whom he was "close".

The case you are making here is certainly the most rational anti-S/R case to be made (in my opinion) but in light of all the statements, the character of the witnesses and subsequent evidence, it seems unlikely to me.

All the best.

I will have to continue to disagree with you. All of your evidence except for your analysis of the Oberlin document is anecdotal in nature. The bit about Rigdon stealing the manuscript rests upon the flimsiest of anecdotal evidence and is not supported by any contemporary statements. Putting the pieces together involves much speculation and very little else. There is a reason few if any scholars, pro or con LDS give much credence to the Spalding theory and witnesses.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...

The letter references the date January, 1812

...

I do not think so.

The date is almost certainly 1813 --

And the version of the Roman story that has been preserved is

at least the second draft. Even S-R critic Matt Roper agrees

to this obvious conclusion, after inspecting the manuscript.

The Roman story we now have available for examination is likely

a draft begun in Pennsylvania, after Spalding had moved to

Pittsburgh, and perhaps while he was staying with the Wilson

family in Washington, Pennsylvania.

The draft seen by the Conneaut witnesses would have been a

similar story, but perhaps with minor differences. It's great

spiritual teacher would have been named "Boska" instead of "Lobaska,"

and -- as Josiah Spalding reported -- the Roman ship may have landed

on the southern coast of North America, instead of the east coast,

in that earlier version of the story.

If I am correct in my estimation of history, then the second draft

of the Roman story post-dated the first draft of Manuscript Found.

That would mean that some Book of Mormon developments were already

in Spalding's head and written down on paper, before he worked on

Roman Story draft #2.

Something to think about.

See my notes, here:

http://solomonspalding.com/Lib/Bsh1977a.htm#comments

UD

[Glenn101]

I do not think so.

The date is almost certainly 1813 --

And the version of the Roman story that has been preserved is

at least the second draft. Even S-R critic Matt Roper agrees

to this obvious conclusion, after inspecting the manuscript.

The Roman story we now have available for examination is likely

a draft begun in Pennsylvania, after Spalding had moved to

Pittsburgh, and perhaps while he was staying with the Wilson

family in Washington, Pennsylvania.

The draft seen by the Conneaut witnesses would have been a

similar story, but perhaps with minor differences. It's great

spiritual teacher would have been named "Boska" instead of "Lobaska,"

and -- as Josiah Spalding reported -- the Roman ship may have landed

on the southern coast of North America, instead of the east coast,

in that earlier version of the story.

If I am correct in my estimation of history, then the second draft

of the Roman story post-dated the first draft of Manuscript Found.

That would mean that some Book of Mormon developments were already

in Spalding's head and written down on paper, before he worked on

Roman Story draft #2.

Something to think about.

See my notes, here:

http://solomonspalding.com/Lib/Bsh1977a.htm#comments

UD

So if I understand you correctly, there is a first draft Roman Story, a hiatus on the Roman Story while starting and mostly completing "Manuscript Found', then second draft of Roman Story, never completed? And your tentative dates would be?

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

So if I understand you correctly, there is a first draft Roman Story, a hiatus on the Roman Story while starting and mostly completing "Manuscript Found', then second draft of Roman Story, never completed? And your tentative dates would be?

Glenn

You'd have to consult Matt Roper's two papers on the subject,

to see what the current LDS scholars are saying -- but my "take"

is that the Roman story was inspired by the opening of a mound

near Spalding's home in Conenaut. In that event, and in other

discoveries in the neighborhood, artifacts were uncovered which

appeared to make the ancient Conneaut Creek area the habitation

of an advanced civilization.

My guess is that Spalding's interest in local Indian mounds dated

from 1810-1811, and that the first draft of the Roman story was

written down in 1811 or 1812. Spalding's brother Josiah claimed

to have seen a very similar story in 1812, while visiting Conneaut.

Spalding moved to Pittsburgh late in 1812. Sometime after that

removal, I suppose the second draft of the Roman story was attempted.

In that second draft, Spalding crossed out the name "Boska" and

replaced it with "Lobaska." So, I call the two respective drafts

the "Baska story" and the "Lobaska story."

If Spalding abandoned his second draft (the Lobaska story) in 1813,

that might explain why a folded sheet, comprising four manuscript

pages, had been torn off one of its folios. Such an abandonment of

writing might also explain why Spalding never bothered to cross out

the 1813 draft letter.

Either the sheet containing that draft letter was written first,

and then used as scrap paper, in constructing the Lobaska story --

or, a blank page was left in the Lobaska story, upon which

Spalding (or somebody else) scribbled the draft letter. It is not

in his handwriting, and his own parents were deceased by 1813,

so the writer could have been almost anybody.

As for any possible connection between the two drafts of the Roman

story, and some story concerning the Lost Tribes of Israel -- I do

not suppose it really matters which idea came first in Spalding's mind.

His Conneaut neighbors reportedly said, in 1833, that Spalding had

abandoned the Roman story while still living in Conneaut (1812?) and

thereafter had begun sharing with them the narrative of an older,

more biblical Lost Israelite Tribes story.

The grandson of Ethan Smith claimed a relationship between Ethan Smith

and Solomon Spalding, reaching back to their student days at Dartmouth --

also that Ethan Smith had loaned Spalding a Lost Tribes story, but never

recovered it. If there is any truth in this report, then Spalding's

interest in the Israelite Lost Tribes may have greatly pre-dated his

residence in Ohio. A visitor to his home in New York later recalled

having seen the Lost Tribes story --- and a traveler passing through

the area where Ethan Smith had lived, in Vermont, testified to having

seen a Lost Tribes story preserved there, perhaps in Spalding's hand.

My guess is that Spalding's interest in preColumbian history dated back

to his Dartmouth days -- but whether or not he wrote (or obtained) a

Lost Tribes piece of fiction that early (before 1790) I do not know.

UD

[Glenn101]

You'd have to consult Matt Roper's two papers on the subject,

to see what the current LDS scholars are saying -- but my "take"

is that the Roman story was inspired by the opening of a mound

near Spalding's home in Conenaut. In that event, and in other

discoveries in the neighborhood, artifacts were uncovered which

appeared to make the ancient Conneaut Creek area the habitation

of an advanced civilization.

My guess is that Spalding's interest in local Indian mounds dated

from 1810-1811, and that the first draft of the Roman story was

written down in 1811 or 1812. Spalding's brother Josiah claimed

to have seen a very similar story in 1812, while visiting Conneaut.

Spalding moved to Pittsburgh late in 1812. Sometime after that

removal, I suppose the second draft of the Roman story was attempted.

In that second draft, Spalding crossed out the name "Boska" and

replaced it with "Lobaska." So, I call the two respective drafts

the "Baska story" and the "Lobaska story."

If Spalding abandoned his second draft (the Lobaska story) in 1813,

that might explain why a folded sheet, comprising four manuscript

pages, had been torn off one of its folios. Such an abandonment of

writing might also explain why Spalding never bothered to cross out

the 1813 draft letter.

Either the sheet containing that draft letter was written first,

and then used as scrap paper, in constructing the Lobaska story --

or, a blank page was left in the Lobaska story, upon which

Spalding (or somebody else) scribbled the draft letter. It is not

in his handwriting, and his own parents were deceased by 1813,

so the writer could have been almost anybody.

As for any possible connection between the two drafts of the Roman

story, and some story concerning the Lost Tribes of Israel -- I do

not suppose it really matters which idea came first in Spalding's mind.

His Conneaut neighbors reportedly said, in 1833, that Spalding had

abandoned the Roman story while still living in Conneaut (1812?) and

thereafter had begun sharing with them the narrative of an older,

more biblical Lost Israelite Tribes story.

The grandson of Ethan Smith claimed a relationship between Ethan Smith

and Solomon Spalding, reaching back to their student days at Dartmouth --

also that Ethan Smith had loaned Spalding a Lost Tribes story, but never

recovered it. If there is any truth in this report, then Spalding's

interest in the Israelite Lost Tribes may have greatly pre-dated his

residence in Ohio. A visitor to his home in New York later recalled

having seen the Lost Tribes story --- and a traveler passing through

the area where Ethan Smith had lived, in Vermont, testified to having

seen a Lost Tribes story preserved there, perhaps in Spalding's hand.

My guess is that Spalding's interest in preColumbian history dated back

to his Dartmouth days -- but whether or not he wrote (or obtained) a

Lost Tribes piece of fiction that early (before 1790) I do not know.

UD

Dale, I am trying to get a grip on the time lines. If Oliver Smith's recollections are accurate, Solomon was working on the "Manuscript Found" story in 1809-1810 while boarding with Smith. Yet, Solomon was "reportedly" told some of his neighbors that he was going to rewrite his story, going further back in time and write a history of the Lost Tribes of Israel. I can find no direct quotes for this. The only thing I seem to remember is E.D. Howe stating that he had gone back to interview some of the former neighbors and showed them the manuscript. They are said to have declared that was not the one they had heard or read. It was then that they said that he was going to do the rewrite. Are there any contemporary statements by Smith, Wright, Lake, etc. about this or do we have to take E.D. Howe's word for it?

Also there is some confusion about the Romance of Celes on file at the Library of Congress, i.e. that it is not the handiwork of Solomon Spalding of Conneaut Creek Ohio, Pittsburgh, and Amity Pennsylvania but a later cousin, a Doctor Solomon Spalding. Do you have any more information on that?

Thanks,

Glenn

[4truth]

UD wrote:

I do not think so.

The date is almost certainly 1813 --

Wow. I wonder why several people claimed it was 1812? Vanick's book states 1812 as does Lester Bush whom they cite. You're right, it looks more like 1813, although it also looks like it could be 1818, which would of course mean that the pages were left blank by Spalding and someone came along two years after he was dead and wrote the letter.

But from the copy you pasted here it looks like it's probably 1813.

If I am correct in my estimation of history, then the second draft

of the Roman story post-dated the first draft of Manuscript Found.

That would mean that some Book of Mormon developments were already

in Spalding's head and written down on paper, before he worked on

Roman Story draft #2.

Something to think about.

Interesting. That potentially changes some things. I always thought of the parallels you and Holley discovered as originating with the Roman Story and then to MF... but it may have been the other way around.

Spalding moved to Pittsburgh late in 1812. Sometime after that

removal, I suppose the second draft of the Roman story was attempted.

Do we know exactly when MF was submitted to Patterson?

Either the sheet containing that draft letter was written first,

and then used as scrap paper, in constructing the Lobaska story --

or, a blank page was left in the Lobaska story, upon which

Spalding (or somebody else) scribbled the draft letter. It is not

in his handwriting, and his own parents were deceased by 1813,

so the writer could have been almost anybody.

It doesn't make sense to me that the letter was written before the narrative on the other side, given the page numbers at the top of the page. I wouldn't think the numbers would have been placed there after the letter was written. So to my thinking, the narration was written and then the letter was written. This suggests to me that Spalding stopped work on the Lobaska tale prior to 1813, which, as you point out, agrees with the witness testimony. It seems logical then, that the narration that picks up on page 135 was written sometime after 1813. I would think the logical time for this is while MF is sitting at the Patterson's waiting on a publishing decision.

You've seen the manuscript. Are the pages transparent enough to notice writing on the other side?

[noel00]

One thing to say about you Dale, you are the Indiana Jones of Mormon History. You just keep giving with your knowledge about the little nooks and crannies of early Mormon/American history. If what Jockers and others have done ends up with some solid support you legacy will be that you solved the problem of the real origin of the Book of Mormon. Brodie, Lester Bush, Roper, Vogel and Chris Smith's versions of the origins of the BOM could be redundant. We shall see. The next few years are going to be exciting and interesting no matter what is the eventual outcome of all this research.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Do we know exactly when MF was submitted to Patterson?

No -- but I'd guess late 1812 or early 1813. I think that after

publication was refused by the Patterson brothers, that Solomon

took his manuscript(s) to the Hugh Wilson home in Washington, PA

and spent part of the winter of 1813-14 re-writing "Manuscript Found."

That might have been the same time that he gave the Roman story one

last try -- but gave up on that alternative for good, and thereafter

concentrated all his efforts on the Israelite story.

It doesn't make sense to me that the letter was written before the

narrative on the other side, given the page numbers at the top of

the page. I wouldn't think the numbers would have been placed there

after the letter was written. So to my thinking, the narration was

written and then the letter was written.

Or -- Spalding may have set his production to one side for awhile,

as a combination of hand-written and blank pages. When he went

back to work on it some more, he found that somebody had used one

of the blank pages to start writing a draft letter -- so he skipped

past that mutilated page, and continued writing on the next available

blank page. Not likely -- but that's the third possibility.

This suggests to me that Spalding stopped work on the Lobaska tale

prior to 1813, which, as you point out, agrees with the witness

testimony. It seems logical then, that the narration that picks

up on page 135 was written sometime after 1813. I would think the

logical time for this is while MF is sitting at the Patterson's waiting

on a publishing decision.

You've seen the manuscript. Are the pages transparent enough to notice

writing on the other side?

The paper is thick and coarse. You'd have to hold a page up to a

strong light, to see through to the other side.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

Dale, I am trying to get a grip on the time lines. If Oliver Smith's recollections are accurate, Solomon was working on the "Manuscript Found" story in 1809-1810 while boarding with Smith. Yet, Solomon was "reportedly" told some of his neighbors that he was going to rewrite his story, going further back in time and write a history of the Lost Tribes of Israel. I can find no direct quotes for this. The only thing I seem to remember is E.D. Howe stating that he had gone back to interview some of the former neighbors and showed them the manuscript. They are said to have declared that was not the one they had heard or read. It was then that they said that he was going to do the rewrite. Are there any contemporary statements by Smith, Wright, Lake, etc. about this or do we have to take E.D. Howe's word for it?

Well, there is Aron Wright's Dec. 31, 1833 draft

letter, in which he says:

>Hurlbut is now at my store I have

>examined the writings which he has obtained

>from sd Spaldings widowe I recognise them to

>be the writings hand writing of sd Spalding but not

>the manuscript I had refferance to in my statement

>before alluded to as he informed me he wrote in the

>first place he wrote for his own amusement and

>then altered his plan and commenced writing a

>history of the first Settlement of America the

>particulars you will find in my testimony Dated

>Sept 1833 August 1833

>

>

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/Ashtab3.htm#1833ltr

The Roman story only briefly alludes to the first

settlement of America. It's main story takes place

long after the light-skinned mound-builders and the

dark-skinned Indians had arrived there.

A story about the first settlement of America better

matches the reported testimony of Erastus Rudd, who

was Oliver Smith's next door neighbor. Rudd saw a

fictional history of Israelites written by Spalding,

but it was evidently not so much like the Book of Mormon

to prevent Rudd from joining the Mormon Church in 1832.

Also there is some confusion about the Romance of Celes on

file at the Library of Congress, i.e. that it is not the handiwork

of Solomon Spalding of Conneaut Creek Ohio, Pittsburgh, and Amity

Pennsylvania but a later cousin, a Doctor Solomon Spalding.

Do you have any more information on that?

Thanks,

Glenn

You'll find some info at my Spalding web-site. Solomon Spalding's

descendants donated it to the Library of Congress, on the understanding

that it was written by him (Solomon of Ashford, Connecticut) -- however

the handwriting is that of the girlfriend/wife of Solomon's younger

cousin, Arvilla Ann Harris, who lived near Batavia, NY.

I'd guess that it was an original Solomon Spalding story, revised and

expanded by his cousin (named "Dr. Solomon Spalding") after his death.

UD

.