The Nephites and "the animals on which they rode".

[Sevenbak]

Lucy Mack Smith wrote in the biography of her son,

"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them." (Biographical Sketches, 92)

According to Lucy, prior to Joseph finding the gold plates, he occasionally would reveal things about the ancient Nephites/Lamanites, which he was told by or deduced from Moroni or other revelation that he received.

Along with other aspects of their culture, Lucy recalls Joseph telling them about "the animals upon which they rode". I think that this implies at least two things: Joseph told the family that the Nephites/Lamanites "rode" on more than one type of animal and at least one of those animals weren't horses.

The Book of Mormon, however, never mentions the Nephites/Lamanites riding any animals, although it does mention "chariots" and "horses".

Considering the apologetic debate over "horses", "chariots", "elephents", "cureloms", and "cumoms", does Lucy's off-hand comment shed any light?

It makes perfect sense to me. Joseph had 21 or 31 (can't remember which) different visitations by Moroni in which he was taught and tutored. In addition, he had the U&T and seer stone by which he received much revelation and understanding.

Why is it so hard to believe that Moroni in his mortality could see us, but Joseph in his mortality could not see them? Both were prophets of God with spiritual gifts.

Mormon 8:

34 Behold, the Lord hath shown unto me great and marvelous things concerning that which must shortly come, at that day when these things shall come forth among you.

35 Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.

[Sevenbak]

It makes perfect sense to me. Joseph had 21 or 31 (can't remember which) different visitations by Moroni in which he was taught and tutored. In addition, he had the U&T and seer stone by which he received much revelation and understanding.

Why is it so hard to believe that Moroni in his mortality could see us, but Joseph in his mortality could not see them? Both were prophets of God with spiritual gifts.

Mormon 8:

34 Behold, the Lord hath shown unto me great and marvelous things concerning that which must shortly come, at that day when these things shall come forth among you.

35 Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.

Nephi saw us too, so did the Brother of Jared, and they saw the ancients before them as well, past and future. The principle is the same, prophets and revelations are the same.

The Lord is the same.

[thesometimesaint]

Uncle Dale:

A hill and record. A mighty thin reed to hang an argument on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mound_builder_(people)

The most complete reference for these earthworks is Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley, written by Ephraim G. Squier and Edwin H. Davis. It was published in 1848 by the Smithsonian Institution. Since many of the features the authors documented have since been destroyed or diminished by farming and development, their surveys, sketches, and descriptions are still used by modern archaeologists. All of their sites located in Kentucky came from the manuscripts of C. S. Rafinesque. A smaller regional study in 1931 by author and archaeologist Fred Dustin charted and examined the mounds and Ogemaw Earthworks near Saginaw, Michigan. Archaeological survey and recording of mounds is an ongoing task.

COULD the Jaredites have ridden elephants? Possible but probably not very likely. I personally would like to see a lot more evidence for elephants in Mesoamerica during Jaredite times before I would even venture a guess.

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale:

A hill and record. A mighty thin reed an argument on.

Why stop at just two items? Why not count up a few more?

01. Date of the Finding of the Ancient Records

02. Place of the Finding of the Ancient Records

03. The Exact Location

04. The Finder of the Ancient Records

05. Discovery of the Stone

06. Lifting of the Stone

07. Under the Stone

08. The Cover Stone

09. The Record Box

10. Inside the Box

11. Removal of the Ancient Records

12. Format and Language of the Records

13. A Translation Needed

14. A Personal History

15. Multiple Histories and Complex Compilations

16. The Records are an Abridgment

17. The Future Audience

18. A Carefully Hidden Record

19. A Word to the Reader

20. A Bedroom Vision

21. Part of the Record Kept Back

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap04.htm#it01

Let's just look at one item from the above list --

Spalding (MS:001)

"With the assistance of a lever

I raised the stone"

Smith T&S III:771

"I obtained a lever which

I got fixed under... the stone

and... raised it up"

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap04.htm#it06

That is just one small item in a list of nearly two dozen sequential textual parallels.

But, if we look at the original telling of the story, in the Messenger & Advocate

practically all of these textual parallels are missing.

If I were to compare the Spalding discovery story with the first telling of the Smith story,

then, it is true, -- "A hill and record. A mighty thin reed an argument on."

But that is NOT what I am comparing.

UD

[thesometimesaint]

Uncle Dale:

Then what is it you ARE arguing? Anything other than a cursory study of "Manuscript Found" shows the similarities to be superficial at best.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap04.htm#it06

That is just one small item in a list of nearly two dozen sequential textual parallels.

But, if we look at the original telling of the story, in the Messenger & Advocate

practically all of these textual parallels are missing.

If I were to compare the Spalding discovery story with the first telling of the Smith story,

then, it is true, -- "A hill and record. A mighty thin reed an argument on."

But that is NOT what I am comparing.

UD

I am confused, what are you arguing here? It sounds if you are saying that JS used the "manuscript found" as some sort of template for the BoM. Is there any evidence that JS was aware of the his thing much less read it?

So far I am not really that impressed with the supposed similarities.

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale:

Then what is it you ARE arguing? Anything other than a cursory study of "Manuscript Found" shows the similarities to be superficial at best.

That Sidney Rigdon wrote major sections of the Joseph Smith history

published by the LDS "Times and Seasons," --- and, that in the process

he plagiarized Solomon Spalding text, from either a copy of the Oberlin manuscript,

or from a copy of some very similar Spalding text that re-told the Spalding "discovery."

Take a few minutes to read the first article in my list:

Rigdon and Lobaska

If Sidney Rigdon's references to Christianity are factored out of the comparison, the literary residue of similarities between his biographical sketch and that of the Baska/Lobaska character in Spalding's story is truly remarkable.

Not only are the narrative styles of these two accounts noticeably similar, but also the content of events and their specific details. Both Lobaska and Rigdon were superior in their eloquence, wisdom, and reasoning powers. The fame of both men spread far and wide, and many people gathered to listen to their eloquent discourses in astonishment. Both men taught new religious doctrines; their arguments cut through superstition and prejudice, and people forsook their old beliefs and embraced the new truths. Both men cared for the happiness and salvation of the people and were indefatigable in their missionary labors. Both men were held in high esteem, and the people contributed generously to the support of each man and his family.

In both accounts mention is made of a "propicious era" or "millennium" in which religious hopes and expectations may come to fruition. Neither Spalding's Lobaska nor Sidney Rigdon presents himself as a divine messenger, and yet both men convey to a benighted people "truths" (or "truth") that is divine, and "received as sacred" or "received with gladness" by their respective converts. As their popularity increases, both men are called upon by multitudes of thousands, to deliver more public discourses -- and both Lobaska and Rigdon "comply" with this public outcry for further wisdom. In both accounts the reader is told of "sacred" writings, but the people's "ignorance" of sacred precepts is only overcome after Lobaska and Rigdon use their eloquence to instruct their audiences by bringing new light to the old religion.

http://www.solomonspalding.com/bomstudies/fragment.htm

UD

[Benjamin McGuire]

It's all parallelomania though UD. That's all that it is. Simply providing lists of parallels isn't useful, and it isn't significant.

Ben M.

[katherine the great]

I've always wondered how reliable Mother Smith's account was. She had to have been rather elderly by the time she wrote this and would have had to have had almost perfect recall of events that would have happened thirty plus years earlier. I believe that her general knowledge was probably very good, but I really have to wonder about the details.

[Uncle Dale]

It's all parallelomania though UD. That's all that it is. Simply providing lists of parallels isn't useful, and it isn't significant.

Ben M.

Except for two additional facts:

1. Very few of the parallels appear in the Oct. 1835 first telling of the Smith discovery story.

The significant thematic and vocabulary parallels occur only in a certain telling of that story.

2. The thematic and vocabulary parallels appear in the Times and Seasons serialized

history in two distinct clusters -- in the section relating Sidney Rigdon's preaching career in

southern Geauga Co., Ohio, c. 1826-27, and in the section relating the Smith plates discovery.

Applying the same textual comparison technique, all across the Times and Seasons text,

I only see the "spike" in textual parallels with Spalding present in these two small sections.

I may have missed a significant resemblance here and there, but I'm fairly confident that

what I just stated is accurate.

Based upon the strong, tight, and evidently exclusive distribution pattern of "Spaldingish"

phraseology in these two sections of the Times and Seasons history, wouldn't you

agree that further inspection and study of the phenomenon is warranted? I'm fairly convinced

that word-print analysis would confirm that these two sections of the history were written

by the same person. Would such a word-print study be worthwhile?

And -- if such a study were conducted, and the results told us that Sidney Rigdon was the

most likely author of the extensive set of parallels in the two records discovery stories,

then would that discovery strengthen previous claims, that Rigdon authored part of the BoM?

What I am asking, is HOW the phenomenon might best be explored and possibly explained?

UD

[Uncle Dale]

I've always wondered how reliable Mother Smith's account was. She had to have been rather elderly by the time she wrote this and would have had to have had almost perfect recall of events that would have happened thirty plus years earlier. I believe that her general knowledge was probably very good, but I really have to wonder about the details.

The fact that Rev. Ariel McMaster cited young Joseph as also

telling Nephite stories in southern New York, at about the same

time, leads me to believe that Smith did occasionally relate such

accounts --- either from the Book of Mormon or from his interactions

with "Moroni," etc.

The part about riding on certain animals may, however, been

Mother Smith's addition to the family tradition. Not many animals

in preColumbian America were domesticatable and large enough

to support human riders -- perhaps some members of the deer family.

UD

[Benjamin McGuire]

Uncle Dale writes:

1. Very few of the parallels appear in the Oct. 1835 first telling of the Smith discovery story.

The significant thematic and vocabulary parallels occur only in a certain telling of that story.

I would argue just the opposite. The fact that you find the seemingly most similar retelling suggests cherry picking the evidence as much as anything else.

2. The thematic and vocabulary parallels appear in the Times and Seasons serialized

history in two distinct clusters -- in the section relating Sidney Rigdon's preaching career in

southern Geauga Co., Ohio, c. 1826-27, and in the section relating the Smith plates discovery.

But this doesn't actually mean anything unless you can distinguish this from coincidence. After all, as I point out, Verne's Around the World in 80 Days has some seemingly significant vocabulary parallels to the Book of Mormon also.

Applying the same textual comparison technique, all across the Times and Seasons text,

I only see the "spike" in textual parallels with Spalding present in these two small sections.

I may have missed a significant resemblance here and there, but I'm fairly confident that

what I just stated is accurate.

But I am not confident at all, neither do I find your method very convincing. What other texts have you used to create a baseline for your confidence?

Based upon the strong, tight, and evidently exclusive distribution pattern of "Spaldingish"

phraseology in these two sections of the Times and Seasons history, wouldn't you

agree that further inspection and study of the phenomenon is warranted? I'm fairly convinced

that word-print analysis would confirm that these two sections of the history were written

by the same person. Would such a word-print study be worthwhile?

Actually, I am not in a position to say much of what I think about the issue of this kind of word-print study. What I would say though is that what you refer to Spaldingish praseology doesn't actually impress me all that much - have doing a fair amount of lexical analysis of the Spalding text. In other words, how much does this "spaldingish phraseology" show up in other seemingly unrelated contemporary texts? Is it unique to Spalding? Or are we instead identifying elements which are quite common for that millieu (and thus expected in other contemporary writings) and mis-identifying them as "spaldingish phraseology" when in fact we might actually expect to see them in other places. At what point does your extremely limited number of examined sources become a significant liability to your method?

And -- if such a study were conducted, and the results told us that Sidney Rigdon was the

most likely author of the extensive set of parallels in the two records discovery stories,

then would that discovery strengthen previous claims, that Rigdon authored part of the BoM?

And of course the Criddle study is fatally flawed. (Not just a little flawed, but fatally flawed).

What I am asking, is HOW the phenomenon might best be explored and possibly explained?

I think that I gave some pretty good questions that need to be asked firt of the perceived phenomenon before we can get to this point.

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

The other thing is that, of course, there ought to be normal notions of human communication thrown in here.

Allegedly, Joseph is told things by the angel (stories, etc.). He then interprets what he is told. He then relays his interpretation to his mother, who has to interpret what he tells her. And then she is providing us with her recollections of what she thought Joseph meant.

[Benjamin McGuire]

btw Dale, any time you compare two texts, you will find that some sections are more closely related than others. You attempt to make this significant not so much through the text, but by creating hypothetical explanations using contested historical scenarios. How do you avoid circular reasoning?

[Uncle Dale]

...

What other texts have you used to create a baseline for your confidence?

...

Texts that tell the story of a lone man walking to the top of a hill on the southern shores of

the Great Lakes, where he sees a large flat stone, which he prys up with a lever, and

beneath that stone discovers an ancient record depository -- with the ancient record

enclosed in a man-made box -- a record written in an ancient language, requiring

translation -- which has been hid up for the reading of future European American

inhabitants -- a record which, when the finder attempts to remove it, is overcome

by feelings preventing him in that task -- a record, part of which has been kept back --

but the part available for translation tells of the fate of an ancient civilization in

the Americas, among whom were the first American Christians, etc. etc?

Actually, I've only compared two other texts -- the Oct. 1835 telling of the Smith

discovery story and the 1808 Thomas Ashe book, "Travels in America," in which

he opens a mound, finds ancient artifacts, etc.

Can you suggest any similar texts which I should inspect for sequential thematic parallels?

UD

[Uncle Dale]

btw Dale, any time you compare two texts, you will find that some sections are more closely related than others. You attempt to make this significant not so much through the text, but by creating hypothetical explanations using contested historical scenarios. How do you avoid circular reasoning?

If I compare the Book of Mormon text to the unique portions of the JST

text, I imagine that I see " some sections are more closely related than others;"

but then again that my merely show my bias, and expert scholars may agree

that the two texts are in no way related.

I'm not sure how to avoid this sort of "circular reasoning."

I look at youthful pictures of my brother and myself and imagine that

I see so many resemblances, that the two faces must bear some

closer relationship than mere coincidence. However, I am already

biased, in thinking that my brother and I are related. Perhaps both

of us were secretly adopted as infants, from different countries.

What to do? Perhaps DNA testing would be in order?

But my bias and circular reasoning led to the DNA testing in

the first place -- and so some may argue that I have secretly

tampered with that testing, rendering it permanently flawed.

So, I guess we would need to run additional DNA tests, and do

additional research ---- preferably with no input from me whatsoever.

At the end of that lengthy process, the results might be such that

all would agree that my bias and circular reasoning have not

flawed the testing.

Doesn't Science operate somewhat along those lines?

Somebody points out an oddity, or expresses and opinion, and

others must test that hypothesis, to find the facts?

UD

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dale writes:

Actually, I've only compared two other texts -- the Oct. 1835 telling of the Smith

discovery story and the 1808 Thomas Ashe book, "Travels in America," in which

he opens a mound, finds ancient artifacts, etc.

Can you suggest any similar texts which I should inspect for sequential thematic parallels?

No. And this misses the point completely. It is actually fairly easy to find thematic parallels between texts (it doesn't have to be this particular set of parallels - because this aprticular set isn't really that impressive if its contrived - we can come up with other similarly lengthy and/or complex parallels that occur by chance, don't you think?). It is something altogether different to try and prove a relationship exists between them that isn't created by common vocabularies, common millieus and so on. And yet, we can be fairly certain that we can identify texts which have such lists of common themes that are completely unrelated to one another. So, such a comparison could in fact be quite coincidental. How do you determine that it isn't a coincidence - particularly without engaging in circular argumentation (which I believe that you do engage in).

When we talk about a spaldingish vocabulary, what distinguishes this vocabulary from other contemporary vocabularies? What are its defining charateristics - and can we find these characteristics elsewhere. These are the nuts and bolts questions that must be addressed when trying to deal with this kind of method - otherwise, it is nothing more than an arbitrary selection based entirely on the evidence set which best supports your conclusions and not really a methodology at all.

Ben M.

[Uncertain]

It's all parallelomania though UD. That's all that it is. Simply providing lists of parallels isn't useful, and it isn't significant.

Ben M.

Hi Ben,

I 100% agree, the problem is I see this all the time in apologetic literature. For example providing a list of parallels between certain Book of Moses passages and 3 Enoch without using control texts to establish context. I agree simply listing a set of parallels without using suitably chosen control texts to provide a baseline point of comparison is problematic. I just think accusing Uncle Dale of poor methodology but using the same methodology to support LDS truth claims is a good example of the pot calling the kettle black (not necessarily in your case but in general).

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Benjamin McGuire]

Uncle Dale writes:

Somebody points out an oddity, or expresses and opinion, and

others must test that hypothesis, to find the facts?

And this is part of the issue, don't you think? What exactly makes it an "oddity"? I am not sure that have provided anything close to a sufficient definition of what an oddity might me. Nor do I think you have given us any idea of what we ought to expect a comparison to reveal to us if the texts were completely unrelated. Do you see the problem? You say that it is an oddity, but I disagree with you. In fact, I think we can find these kinds of apparent coincidences all the time. We just don't usually consider it an issue because we aren't usually worried about finding relationships between text X and text Y.

It isn't the oddity that motivates you Dale, it is your theory which then produced what you felt was an oddity that also (coincidentally) provided evidence of your theory. So let's not start by claiming that you noticed this oddity. You didn't start with this oddity but rather with the theory I think.

Ben M.

[charity]

Hi Ben,

I 100% agree, the problem is I see this all the time in apologetic literature. For example providing a list of parallels between certain Book of Moses passages and 3 Enoch without using control texts to establish context. I agree simply listing a set of parallels without using suitably chosen control texts to provide a baseline point of comparison is problematic. I just think accusing Uncle Dale of poor methodology but using the same methodology to support LDS truth claims is a good example of the pot calling the kettle black (not necessarily in your case but in general).

All the Best,

Uncertain

Not all parallels are created equal. If you are going to move a rock, what do you use? A lever. You don't use a saw. So can you say it was copied?

Om the other hand, what age classifications are there for men? Boy. Youth. Young man. Old man. So if twol sources refer to Enoch as a youth, then that is a stronger link.

[Benjamin McGuire]

It is this notion, Uncertain, that lends inappropraite weight to materials like Grant Palmer's book with its horrible sets of parallels.

On the other hand, my approach will be put on display quite soon in the forthcoming issue of Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and Restoration Scriptures from the Maxwell Institute. So hopefully we can start a trend to change this tendancy.

[Uncertain]

Not all parallels are created equal. If you are going to move a rock, what do you use? A lever. You don't use a saw. So can you say it was copied?

Om the other hand, what age classifications are there for men? Boy. Youth. Young man. Old man. So if twol sources refer to Enoch as a youth, then that is a stronger link.

Hi Charity,

I certainly agree, not all parallels are created equal but so what? Does it then boil down to both sides pointing to their set of parallels and exclaiming how complex they are and how they would never occur by random chance? I agree with Ben what needs to be done to put parallels on a solid footing is estimating in a rigorous fashion the degree of parallels expected between texts known not to be related but are similar in terms of subject matter, time point written etc. Simply because a given parallel say a parallel between the Book of Moses and 3rd Enoch is more complex than say a parallel between the BOM and View of the Hebrews. Does not in and of itself mean the parallel between the Book of Moses and 3rd Enoch is meaningful. Maybe both parallels are due entirely to random chance. To build a convincing argument you need to first establish in a rigorous fashion what would be expected by chance then a set of parallels starts becoming interesting. Simply claiming parallels X, Y and Z are so complex they could never occur by chance without first establishing what you would expect by chance is not convincing. Without knowing what degree of similarity would be expected by random chance how in the world can you effectively argue a parallel is not due to random chance (or a common subject matter or a common vocabulary etc)?

(Edited for clarity)

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

It is this notion, Uncertain, that lends inappropraite weight to materials like Grant Palmer's book with its horrible sets of parallels.

I agree, Grant Palmer's methodology was not at all convincing.

On the other hand, my approach will be put on display quite soon in the forthcoming issue of Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and Restoration Scriptures from the Maxwell Institute. So hopefully we can start a trend to change this tendancy.

I look forward to reading it.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Uncle Dale]

...

I am not sure that have provided anything close to a sufficient definition of what an oddity might [be].

...

I really do not have to re-walk that path. Mormons from many years back have pointed to

the similarities in the two ancient record discovery accounts as the only substantial parallels

between Joseph Smith and Solomon Spalding --- and perhaps as the undeserving genesis

of the entire "authorship theory."

In order to establish a literary basis for examining the two ancient record discovery accounts

side-by-side, all I need to do is to cite those old LDS writers and say that THEY first identified

the oddity, (and not Ted Chandler nor myself).

That much alone should provide me with a reasonable incentive to do a little bit of research

and reporting. If those old Mormon writers were barking up the wrong tree, then some

contemporary scholar such as yourself will be better received in voicing that conclusion,

than would one of us anti-Mormons.

Correct?

UD

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dale writes:

That much alone should provide me with a reasonable incentive to do a little bit of research

and reporting. If those old Mormon writers were barking up the wrong tree, then some

contemporary scholar such as yourself will be better received in voicing that conclusion,

than would one of us anti-Mormons.

But this doesn't excuse you from having to provide a coherent methodology. And your explaining the challenge - even in its minutiae as you do, doesn't provide us with a way of assessing significance. After all, Vogel (and a host of others) see freemasonry in the text, Palmer sees Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, and so on. Nor are you now dealing with the fact that you haven't really dealt with the question of oddity. Is your argument really more compelling than say Palmer and his The Golden Pot theory?

Ben M.