Solomon Spalding

[Glenn101]

The brother of Solomon Spalding said

He [solomon] then told me had he been writing a book, which he intended to have printed, the avails of which he thought would enable him to pay all his debts. The book was entitled the "Manuscript Found," of which he read to me many passages. -- It was an historical romance of the first settlers of America, endeavoring to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews, or the lost tribes. It gave a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till they arrived in America, under the command of NEPHI AND LEHI. They afterwards had quarrels and contentions, and separated into two distinct nations, one of which he denominated Nephites and the other Lamanites. Cruel and bloody wars ensued, in which great multitudes were slain. They buried their dead in large heaps, which caused the mounds so common in this country. Their arts, sciences and civilization were brought into view, in order to account for all the curious antiquities, found in various [280] parts of North and South America. I have recently read the Book of Mormon, and to my great surprize I find nearly the same historical matter, names, &c. as they were in my brother's writings. I well remember that he wrote in the old style, and commenced about every sentence with "and it came to pass," or "now it came to pass," the same as in the Book of Mormon, and according to the best of my recollection and belief, it is the same as my brother Solomon wrote, with the exception of the religious matter. -- By what means it has fallen into the hands of Joseph Smith, Jr. I am unable to determine.

JOHN SPALDING."

Is John Spalding lying, having problems with memory? Who added the religious matter?

You have been "Hurlbuted".

Glenn

[Bernard Gui]

From the abstract of the Stanford article:

The only change in classification occurred in chapter 147 (Alma 52) of the Book of Mormon. Instead of Rigdon being the most likely candidate and Spaulding the second most likley, NSC reported the reverse, Spalding as most likely and Rigdon second most likely.

I'm the first to admit I am but an amateur. Nevertheless, when I read Alma 52 and compare it with the battle descriptions in Manuscript Found, I'm at a loss to see how they could be written by the same person (Solomon Spalding). The war in Alma 52 is caused by the invasion of one nation by another motivated by hatred and long-seated animosity. The war in MF is the result of one man seeking to avenge the kidnapping of a princess. Read the two accounts and ask yourself if they were written by the same person. Which one was obviously written in early 19th-century America?

Just for fun, here is an amusing example of Spalding's wonderful writing. Is there anything in the Book of Mormon or the writings of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, or Sidney Rigdon that resembles this?

Sambul was highly pleased with this command, as a victory would ensure him the capture of Lamesa. & afford him an opportunity to obtain revenge. He arrived at the fort just as the blushing morn began to appear...He instantly sprang towards Lamesa in order to seize her, but was prevented by Heliza who stepped between them, and falling upon her knees implored him to spare the life of Lamesa. Scarce had she spoken when the cruel monster buried his sword in her bosom, and she fell lifeless before the eyes of her dearest friend.

Lamesa gave a scream and looking fiercely on Sambul she exclaimed, "Thou monster of villainy and cruelty, could nothing satiate your revenge but the death of my dear friend, the amiable Heliza? Here is my heart I am prepared for your next victim."

"Ah no," says Sambul," your life is safe from my sword. I shall conduct you to my palace and you shall be honored with me for your partner."

"Insult me not," says she, "thou malicious bloody villain. Either kill me or be gone from my sight. My eyes can never endure the man who is guilty of such monstrous crimes.

"Set your heart at rest," says he, "my dear Lamesa. I will convince you that I am a better man than your beloved Elseon. His head shall soon satiate my revenge, and then you shall be the queen of Sciota.

My methods are not as sophisticated as the 3 Stanford dudes, but, to paraphrase Tevye, "Even a poor high school

teacher deserves some credit." I have bolded words that both accounts have in common.

Alma 51 - 53:7 (the battle of the city of Mulek) --

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/51

Personal names: Amalickiah, Ammoron, Jacob, Lehi, Morianton, Moroni, Pahoran, Teancum

Peoples or nations: Lamanite, Nephite, Zoramite

Places: Bountiful, Gid, Morianton, Moroni, Mulek, Nephihah, Omner, Zarahemla

Titles: chief captains, judges, king, king-men, leader, queen

Weapons: javelin, swords, weapons of war

Military/battle terminology: army, attack, battle, breastwork, cast up walls, come out to battle, bury the dead, camp, command, confusion, council of war, cunning, cut through, decoy, defend, designs, dissenters, forces, fortifications, fortify, forts, ground, guards, harass, hewn down, killed, loss of blood, march, men, orders, overpower, places of resort, preparations, prisoners, protect, pursue, ransom, rear, retake cities, retreat, scourge, secure, send embassies, slay, stratagem, strengthen, strike, strongholds, surrounded, take cities, take possession, tent, war, warriors, wounded, weapons

Manuscript Found Chapters 13 - 14 (the Battle of the Plains of Geheno)---

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/oberlin9.txt

Personal names: Como, Conco, Elseon, Habolan, Haloon, Hamack, Hamback,

Hamboon, Hamelick, Hamkol, Hamul, Heliza (female), Kamoff, Kelsock, Labanco, Lamoch,

Lamesa (female), Moonrod, Nunapon, Rambock, Rankoff, Sabamah, Sambul, Taboon, Ulipoon, Wunapon,

Peoples or nations: Sciotans, Kentucks

Places: Catarangus, Kentuck, Gamba, Chiauga, Geheno, Great River, Michigan, Sciota, Tolanga

Titles: Benevolent Being, captain, chief, commander, commander-in-chief, Counselor, Emperor,

Great and Good Being, High Priest, Imperial Family, Infinite Benevolence, King, officers, priests,

Prince, Princess, prophets, Your Majesty

Weapons: arms, arrows, daggers, spears, swords, tomahawks

Military/battle terminology: advantage of the ground, agility, alarm, ambush, annihilation, armistice, assailant, assassinate, assault, attacking, barbarous enemy, battle, bloody campaign, bury dead, blockhouse, boats, brandish his sword, breach, break ranks, camps, cap, sentinels, champions, charge, columns, combatants, command, conflagration, conflict, contest, courage, coward, declaration of war, defense, deserted, dispatch an express, division, encampment, engagement, engage the enemy, escape, exploits, fatigued, feathers, field, fierce, foe, forces, formidable force, forts, gallant, give intelligence, guard, halted, havoc, heroes, heroic, hostile, mounted on an elegant horse, host, informed by an express, lamentation, laurels of glory, left wing of his army, like two mighty ships in a hurricane, mammoths, march, martial, martial music, massacre, mass graves, mechanical arts, messenger, movements, obey orders, palisades, parade, party, phalanx, pioneers, plunder, poltroon, positions, prosecution of plans, provisions, ranks, ravage, reconnoiter, rendezvous, reinforcements, resistance, retreat, revenge, sacrificing the bones of enemies, sallied forth, sanguine, science, self-defense, self-preservation, slaughter, station, storm, stratagem, superior strength, supplies, transported, treacherous, troops, valor, vengeance, victory, violent charge, walls, warriors, weapons, wounded

The words that are common to both accounts (battle, bury dead, camp, captain, chief, command, defense, forces, forts, guard, king, march, orders, stratagem,sword, warrior, weapon, wounded) are ubiquitous in battle descriptions. The important difference is between the words that are not common to both accounts. I see no words in Alma that are distinctively 19th-century American English. On the other hand, many of the words and phrases from Spalding are. For example: armistice, bloody campaign, blockhouse, boats, columns, declaration of war, deserted, dispatch an express, division, engage the enemy, mounted on an elegant horse, like two might ships in a hurricane, martial music, mechanical arts, parade, poltroon, ranks, reconnoiter, rendezvous, science, transported, troops.

It seems very clear to me that these two descriptions of battle were not written by the same person, Solomon Spalding.

Bernard

[mysteryman]

From the abstract of the Stanford article:

I'm the first to admit I am but an amateur. Nevertheless, when I read Alma 52 and compare it with the battle descriptions in Manuscript Found, I'm at a loss to see how they could be written by the same person (Solomon Spalding). The war in Alma 52 is caused by an invasion of one nation by another motivated by hatred and long-seated animosity. The war in MF is the result of one man seeking to avenge the kidnapping of a princess. Read the two accounts and ask yourself if they were written by the same person. Which one was obviously written in early 19th-century America?

Just for fun, here is an amusing example of Spalding's wonderful writing. Is there anything in the Book of Mormon or the writings of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, or Sidney Rigdon that resemble this?

My methods are not as sophisticated as the 3 Stanford dudes, but, to paraphrase Tevye, "Even a poor high school

teacher deserves some credit." I have bolded words that both accounts have in common.

Alma 51 - 53:7 (the battle of the city of Mulek) --

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/51

Personal names: Amalickiah, Ammoron, Jacob, Lehi, Morianton, Moroni, Pahoran, Teancum

Peoples or nations: Lamanite, Nephite, Zoramite

Places: Bountiful, Gid, Morianton, Moroni, Mulek, Nephihah, Omner, Zarahemla,

Titles: chief captains, judges, king, king-men, leader, queen

Weapons: javelin, swords, weapons of war

Military/battle terminology: army, attack, battle, breastwork, cast up walls, come out to battle, bury the dead, camp, command, confusion, council of war, cunning, cut through, decoy, defend, designs, dissenters, forces, fortifications, fortify, forts, ground, guards, harass, hewn down, killed, loss of blood, march, men, orders, overpower, places of resort, preparations, prisoners, protect, pursue, ransom, rear, retake cities, retreat, scourge, secure, send embassies, slay, stratagem, strengthen, strike, strongholds, surrounded, take cities, take possession, tent, war, warriors, wounded, weapons

Manuscript Found Chapters 13 - 14 (the Battle of the Plains of Geheno)---

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/oberlin9.txt

Personal names: Como, Conco, Elseon, Habolan, Haloon, Hamack, Hamback,

Hamboon, Hamelick, Hamkol, Hamul, Heliza (female), Kamoff, Kelsock, Labanco, Lamoch,

Lamesa (female), Moonrod, Nunapon, Rambock, Rankoff, Sabamah, Sambul, Taboon, Ulipoon, Wunapon,

Peoples or nations: Sciotans, Kentucks

Places: Catarangus, Kentuck, Gamba, Chiauga, Geheno, Great River, Michigan, Tolanga

Titles: Benevolent Being, captain, chief, commander, commander-in-chief, Counselor, Emperor,

Great and Good Being, High Priest, Imperial Family, Infinite Benevolence, King, officers, priests,

Prince, Princess, prophets, Your Majesty

Weapons: arms, arrows, daggers, spears, swords, tomahawks

Military/battle terminology: advantage of the ground, agility, alarm, ambush, annihilation, armistice, assailant, assassinate, assault, attacking, barbarous enemy, battle, bloody campaign, bury dead, blockhouse, boats, brandish his sword, breach, break ranks, camps, cap, sentinels, champions, charge, columns, combatants, command, conflagration, conflict, contest, courage, coward, declaration of war, defense, deserted, dispatch an express, division, encampment, engagement, engage the enemy, escape, exploits, fatigued, feathers, field, fierce, foe, forces, formidable force, forts, gallant, give intelligence, guard, halted, havoc, heroes, heroic, hostile, mounted on an elegant horse, host, informed by an express, lamentation, laurels of glory, left wing of his army, like two mighty ships in a hurricane, mammoths, march, martial, martial music, massacre, mass graves, mechanical arts, messenger, movements, obey orders, palisades, parade, party, pioneers, plunder, poltroon, positions, prosecution of plans, provisions, ranks, ravage, reconnoiter, rendezvous, reinforcements, resistance, retreat, revenge, sacrificing the bones of enemies, sallied forth, sanguine, science, self-defense, self-preservation, slaughter, station, storm, stratagem, superior strength, supplies, transported, treacherous, valor, vengeance, victory, violent charge, walls, warriors, weapons, wounded

The words that are common to both accounts (battle, bury dead, camp, command, defense, forces, forts, guard, march, orders, stratagem, warrior, weapon, wounded) are ubiquitous in battle descriptions. The important difference is between the words that are not common to both accounts. I see no words in Alma that are distinctively 19th-century American English. On the other hand, many of the words and phrases from Spalding are. For example: armistice, bloody campaign,

blockhouse, boats, columns, declaration of war, desrted, dispatch an express, division, mounted on an elegant horse, like two might ships in a hurricane, mechanical arts, parade, poltroon, ranks, reconnoiter, rendezvous, science, transported.

It seems very clear to me that these two descriptions of battle were not written by the same person, Solomon Spalding.

Bernard

I don't think the study is concerned about the difference in who attacked who in some battle of two different stories. Generally word print or writing style studies deal with the amount of times an "and" or "is" used. This study I guess has some new sophistigated approach, but I am no expert on it either. I think such studies are flawed and unconvincing. Both apologists and critics of the BoM have used such tactics and generally come up with the desired result they were looking for.

[Ray Agostini]

Both apologists and critics of the BoM have used such tactics and generally come up with the desired result they were looking for.

Too true.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't think the study is concerned about the difference in who attacked who in some battle of two different stories. Generally word print or writing style studies deal with the amount of times an "and" or "is" used. This study I guess has some new sophistigated approach, but I am no expert on it either. I think such studies are flawed and unconvincing. Both apologists and critics of the BoM have used such tactics and generally come up with the desired result they were looking for.

I happen to agree with you on this. I think that word print studies don't really mean anything as there are so many variables.

[Bernard Gui]

I don't think the study is concerned about the difference in who attacked who in some battle of two different stories. Generally word print or writing style studies deal with the amount of times an "and" or "is" used. This study I guess has some new sophistigated approach, but I am no expert on it either. I think such studies are flawed and unconvincing. Both apologists and critics of the BoM have used such tactics and generally come up with the desired result they were looking for.

Spalding was not a sophisticated writer. He could not so easily change his writing style in such a dramatic

way as I have demonstrated. There would be no reason for him to do so, even if he were capable of doing it.

You will note that I am addressing a specific chapter...Alma 52...that is attributed first to Spalding and

second to Rigdon. Just a cursory glance at MF and Alma would debunk such a theory, regardless of the use

of small words in both samples.

Bernard

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The brother of Solomon Spalding said

He [solomon] then told me had he been writing a book, which he intended to have printed, the avails of which he thought would enable him to pay all his debts. The book was entitled the "Manuscript Found," of which he read to me many passages. -- It was an historical romance of the first settlers of America, endeavoring to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews, or the lost tribes. It gave a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till they arrived in America, under the command of NEPHI AND LEHI. They afterwards had quarrels and contentions, and separated into two distinct nations, one of which he denominated Nephites and the other Lamanites. Cruel and bloody wars ensued, in which great multitudes were slain. They buried their dead in large heaps, which caused the mounds so common in this country. Their arts, sciences and civilization were brought into view, in order to account for all the curious antiquities, found in various [280] parts of North and South America. I have recently read the Book of Mormon, and to my great surprize I find nearly the same historical matter, names, &c. as they were in my brother's writings. I well remember that he wrote in the old style, and commenced about every sentence with "and it came to pass," or "now it came to pass," the same as in the Book of Mormon, and according to the best of my recollection and belief, it is the same as my brother Solomon wrote, with the exception of the religious matter. -- By what means it has fallen into the hands of Joseph Smith, Jr. I am unable to determine.

JOHN SPALDING."

Is John Spalding lying, having problems with memory? Who added the religious matter?

This is great and all but were is the hard evidence for this assertion being leveled by John Spalding? What we do have doesn't seem to match up very well to this version of the story, now does it?

[mysteryman]

Spalding was not a sophisticated writer. He could not so easily change his writing style in such a dramatic

way as I have demonstrated. There would be no reason for him to do so, even if he were capable of doing it.

You will note that I am addressing a specific chapter...Alma 52...that is attributed first to Spalding and

second to Rigdon. Just a cursory glance at MF and Alma would debunk such a theory, regardless of the use

of small words in both samples.

Bernard

What you are doing is comparing names and the storyline of a battle. Manuscript found and the Book of Mormon are two different stories, therefore it really doesn't mean anything that the names or weapons are different. The article does not argue that the Manuscript Found and the Book of Mormon are somehow the same story. It is the writing style and the use of small words. Your little excercise you did only demonstrates the stories are not the same story. The one thing you did that could be thought provoking is the war terminology that is used is different, but I don't see this as either confirming or not confirming authorship. However, there is nothing in Alma 52 that would be somehow foreign to 19th century people, it is in fact written in english. Too me, word printing and writing style studies are a dead end in attributing authorship.

[Bernard Gui]

Too true.

Do you think Alma 52 was written by Solomon Spalding, when compared with a similar scenario in Manuscript Found?

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

What you are doing is comparing names and the storyline of a battle. Manuscript found and the Book of Mormon are two different stories, therefore it really doesn't mean anything that the names or weapons are different. The article does not argue that the Manuscript Found and the Book of Mormon are somehow the same story. It is the writing style and the use of small words. Your little excercise you did only demonstrates the stories are not the same story. The one thing you did that could be thought provoking is the war terminology that is used is different, but I don't see this as either confirming or not confirming authorship. However, there is nothing in Alma 52 that would be somehow foreign to 19th century people, it is in fact written in english. Too me, word printing and writing style studies are a dead end in attributing authorship.

My little exercise demonstrates that Spalding did not write Alma 52, which takes him out of the equation Spalding + Rigdon = Book of Mormon.

Having read a lot of early 19th-century American literature,I firmly believe Alma 52 is atypical of the writing of that time. Spalding's

MF fits perfectly in the style of the times. I don't believe Spalding, who was not a trained writer, could change his writing

style so completely, as evidenced by the kinds of names and places he used in his writing and the unusual words he used in his

manuscript (unusual to us, but common at his time) such as Kentuck, poltroon, blushing morn, thou monster of villainy and cruelty, etc.

There is nothing comparable in the Book of Mormon. Spalding's style is typical of the amateur writing of his time.

He did not write the Book of Mormon. That leaves Sidney Rigdon. I would like to see examples of Rigdon's writing that

compare with the Book of Mormon.

Bernard

[mysteryman]

My little exercise demonstrates that Spalding did not write Alma 52, which takes him out of the equation Spalding + Rigdon = Book of Mormon.

Bernard

How? You demonstrated the two stories were different using different names and weapons. Since they are two different stories why is that significant? Your battle terminology is interesting and something to think about, but it still doesn't demonstrate the same person didn't write it. You would need more writings from Spalding to see if he uses the same terminology in different stories, but we don't have it. Look I don't think Spalding wrote it either, but its because of historical evidence, not writing styles. Every type of computer word print or writing style I have heard of has reached different conclusions. FARMS study demonstrated multuple authors, Stanford shows Spalding and Rigdon, a study presented at Sunstone some years ago showed that Joseph Smith could have been the writer. Van Hale, who says he has devoted a lot of time to studying Smith's writing style believes it is found all through the Book of Mormon. I just don't think such studies should be relied on to determine authorship.

[Abulafia]

You have been "Hurlbuted".

Glenn

I'm not so sure that Hurlburt made this up. What evidence do you have?

I'm interested in some of the information that Roger and Dale have that suggests that Hurlburt suddenly changed his approach, after spending some time in the hands of the early mormons. Was his life threatened? Was there 'another' manuscript? It's interesting.

I'm open minded on the origins of the Book of Mormon, but I certainly don't agree with Why me, that if the Book is of 19th century origin and that there are no real Nephites, that it invalidates the LDS church. Not at all. I would think if conclusive proof were found then the Book of Mormon would become 'inspired writing', 'faith promoting story'. We can accept that much of the bible is on this level, particularly the OT in places, so why not the Book of Mormon? Eventually, in 100's of years, I would think that many LDS wouldn't have a problem with this.

If the church helps people to be good, to serve one another, to grow spiritually and intellectually, socially and emotionally, then so what if the Book of Mormon is of 19th Century origin.

[Ray Agostini]

Do you think Alma 52 was written by Solomon Spalding, when compared with a similar scenario in Manuscript Found?

Bernard

I don't think Spalding wrote or inspired one particle of the BoM. I was only commenting on bias in studies.

[Bernard Gui]

How?

Perhaps my writing isn't clear enough. I apologize if it isn't. I've restated it several times. Why don't you just address the arguments I have made

and show where they are wrong?

You demonstrated the two stories were different using different names and weapons. Since they are two different stories why is that significant?

Because the abstract made a point of assigning Alma 52 to Spalding. Comparing a similar war scenario in MF with Alma 52, one should see some similarities

in style and vocabulary. Such is not the case. There is nothing in the Book of Mormon as a whole that remotely resembles this, the longest example of

Spalding's writings and the only one that is touted as being the source of the Book of Mormon. The Spalding theory is what it is called.

Look I don't think Spalding wrote it either, but its because of historical evidence, not writing styles.

I will have to disagree with you here. The styles of Alma 52 and MF 13-14 are so radically different that any reasonable person is obliged to conclude they

are not by the same author. For this reason, I seriously question the validity of the abstract note that asserts Alma 52 was written by Spalding.

In fact, I reject the claim.

Every type of computer word print or writing style I have heard of has reached different conclusions. FARMS study demonstrated multuple authors, Stanford shows Spalding and Rigdon, a study presented at Sunstone some years ago showed that Joseph Smith could have been the writer. Van Hale, who says he has devoted a lot of time to studying Smith's writing style believes it is found all through the Book of Mormon. I just don't think such studies should be relied on to determine authorship.

So, could you read Alma 52 and MF 13-14, as I suggested, and come to a reasonable and provable conclusion that they were written by the same person within

a short time frame? If not, why does this not factor in determining authorship?

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

I don't think Spalding wrote or inspired one particle of the BoM. I was only commenting on bias in studies.

Comprendo. Do you see bias in my comments?

Bernard

[mysteryman]

Perhaps my writing isn't clear enough. I apologize if it isn't. I've restated it several times. Why don't you just address the arguments I have made

and show where they are wrong?

Because the abstract made a point of assigning Alma 52 to Spalding. Comparing a similar war scenario in MF with Alma 52, one should see some similarities

in style and vocabulary. Such is not the case. There is nothing in the Book of Mormon as a whole that remotely resembles this, the longest example of

Spalding's writings and the only one that is touted as being the source of the Book of Mormon. The Spalding theory is what it is called.

I will have to disagree with you here. The styles of Alma 52 and MF 13-14 are so radically different that any reasonable person is obliged to conclude they

are not by the same author. For this reason, I seriously question the validity of the abstract note that asserts Alma 52 was written by Spalding.

In fact, I reject the claim.

So, could you read Alma 52 and MF 13-14, as I suggested, and come to a reasonable and provable conclusion that they were written by the same person within

a short time frame? If not, why does this not factor in determining authorship?

Bernard

Alright, I will address your argument yet again. Ok, here is the criteria you use to determine that it is by different authors. You use Personal names, Peoples and naitons, Places, Titles, Weapons, Military/battle terminology.

Personal names: We are talking about two different stories, I say again two different stories. So why in the world would expect the names to be similar or the same?

Peoples and nations: We are talking about two different stories, I say again two different stories. So why in the world would expect the names of peoples and nations to be the same?

Places: We are talking about two different stories, I say again two different stories. So why in the world would expect the places to be similar or the same?

Titles: Some of the titles are the same as you note, but they are generic titles that anybody might use. But again, we are not talking about the same story.

Weapons: We are talking about two different stories, I say again two different stories. So why in the world would expect the weapons to be exactly the same?

Military/battle terminology: This one is interesting, but just because different battle terms are used in different stories does not automatically mean a different author, it just means a different choice of words. This is why word print studies focus on the mundane words that we use without really thinking about such as "and," "is", "or", "on", "to", etc. All the words you are talking about the author speicifically thinks about when trying to describe something, which could be different in 2 different stories. But the theory is that the mundane words are not done consciously.

So the Military/battle terminology is the only one where you might have a point, but even that isn't that strong of an argument.

[Bernard Gui]

Personal names: We are talking about two different stories, I say again two different stories. So why in the world would expect the names to be similar or the same?

Neither Smith nor Spalding were experienced writers. They invented many of the names in their respective books. Comparing a complete list of invented names

in the BoM and MF reveals certain paterns such as the variations of Mor... and ...iah names, and Ham... and ...oon. If one person had invented both lists,

there would be some similarity. I have never argued they should be the same.

Peoples and nations: We are talking about two different stories, I say again two different stories. So why in the world would expect the names of peoples and nations to be the same?

I have never said they were the same stories. I have said the abstract claims Alma 52 was written by Spalding, and one way to test that claim is to compare

the battle scenario in Manuscript Found 13-14. I have never said they should be the same. If one compares the invented people nation names in both books, one sees a clear distinction in styles.

Places: We are talking about two different stories, I say again two different stories. So why in the world would expect the places to be similar or the same?

Where did I say they should be the same? Ditto reason as stated above.

Titles: Some of the titles are the same as you note, but they are generic titles that anybody might use. But again, we are not talking about the same story.

You are following the wrong trail...I do not claim they are the same story. That would be absurd. I am addressing the claim that the two stories were written

by the same author.

Weapons: We are talking about two different stories, I say again two different stories. So why in the world would expect the weapons to be exactly the same?

Ditto.

Military/battle terminology: This one is interesting, but just because different battle terms are used in different stories does not automatically mean a different author, it just means a different choice of words. This is why word print studies focus on the mundane words that we use without really thinking about such as "and," "is", "or", "on", "to", etc. All the words you are talking about the author speicifically thinks about when trying to describe something, which could be different in 2 different stories. But the theory is that the mundane words are not done consciously.

It is the manner in which the terms differ that is significant. I have pointed out Spalding's usage of distinctive vocabulary that dates his writing,

but none such appear in the Book of Mormon. That is important IMO. Spalding wrote MF. He clearly did not write Alma 52. Some argue that the BoM was

lifted from another Spalding story. It would have been written around the same time. Was Spalding capable of such a drastic change in vocabulary and

style? No. Would have had any reason to do so? No. Therefore, he did not write the Book of Mormon or another manuscript that was used as the basis

of the BoM, and his brother was mistaken.

So the Military/battle terminology is the only one where you might have a point, but even that isn't that strong of an argument.

How would you explain the obvious discrepancies in style and vocabulary between Alma 52 and MF 13-14?

Bernard

[mysteryman]

How would you explain the obvious discrepancies in style and vocabulary between Alma 52 and MF 13-14?

Bernard

Easy, there different stories and I would not expect an author to invent similar names. That the stories are different explains all of what you have tried to do, of course there are discrpencies of names, places, and people in two different stories. This is the precise reason statiticians and people who study style and word prints do not and would not use your criteria to determine authorship. Your approach is much too easy to explain, therefore experts do not apply what you have done.

[AtticusFinch]

This is my own speculative thought on the Spaulding/Rigdon Theory.

This comes from the Lost 116 Manuscripts that Martin Harris took possession of and ultimate lost.

Here is my line of reasoning:

Joseph Smith inquires of the Lord at the bequest of Martin Harris as to taking the already translated 116 pages of the Book of Mormon to show his wife. Upon this third bequest, Martin Harris is granted permission, but limited to who can see the pages with a cautionary warning.

Martin Harris takes the documents with him. Somehow, these documents end up leaving his position. Details are not accurate as to how and why, or as to whom stole the documents, but when Martin Harris confessed as to what happened, he lost the ability to continue on as a scribe for Joseph Smith.

Even more interesting is that the gift to translate was taken from Joseph Smith as well.

When the gift to translate was granted back to Joseph Smith, the Lord instructed Joseph Smith to not re-translate the lost 116 pages, but instead translate what we currently have in the Book of Mormon.

It is here my speculation takes off:

Therefore, my speculation is that these 116 pages were taken and somehow were acquired by Spualding and that it was Spaulding, in an attempt to disprove Joseph Smith (as prophesied) embellished the written record he had acquired, change to suit his own style and voice, and then attempt to discredit the prophet's ability to translate. In this reasoning, the 116 manuscripts are quite possibly part of the Spaulding Manuscript.

What is even more surprising is that there are alot of problems of E.D. Howes Mormonism Unveiled. Much that was not known in 19th Century America is now scientific fact that is starting to prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Why some critics hold to an out dated 19th century polemic against Mormonism is like someone trying to prove that the Earth is flat and not round.

Interesting....never considered that

[thesometimesaint]

robuchan:

Either JS was a fraud, knowingly deceiving others for his personal gain. Or he was pious, telling his story in the way he saw it. He was not both.

As far as Santa Claus is concerned. We all "outgrow" that simple child's tale of love of humanity. We've become oh so wise.

[Bernard Gui]

Your approach is much too easy to explain, therefore experts do not apply what you have done.

Which is exactly my point. It is so easy to see that Spalding did not write the Book of Mormon.

All you have to do is read both MF and the BoM. I reject the expert conclusion that Spalding

wrote Alma 52. It really is that simple.

Bernard

[wenglund]

Is John Spalding lying, having problems with memory? Who added the religious matter?

Where things start to become real problematic for the Spalding Theorists is when you compare John's 1833 statment with his 1851 statement as well as the statement made by his brother Josiah Spalding in 1855.

Not only is John's 1851 statement far more detailed than his 1833 statement, but the two statements significantly conflict (in some instances diametrically so). And, Josiah's recollection significantly conflicts with both of John's statements. So, either John's memory defies the norm by becoming increasingly better over time, or he is lying or seriously comfabulating.

I am willing to give John the benefit of the doubt and think he is inadvertantly confabulating. I think he and Josiah and other witness heard or read portions of the extant manuscript, and since there were a few general similarities with that story and what they later heard or read of the Book of Mormon (buried record, people journeying from the old world to the new, wars between nations), and given the seriously flawed investigaive style of Hurlbut, the witnesses multi-decade distant recollections significantly conflated the two stories, and thus gave birth to the ever-mounting incarnations of the Spalding theory.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Glenn101]

I'm not so sure that Hurlburt made this up. What evidence do you have?

Just read all of the affidavits that Hurlbut gathered on the Book of Mormon. Do you have any evidence to the contrary, i.e. have you or anyone else ever seen the second manuscript?

I'm interested in some of the information that Roger and Dale have that suggests that Hurlburt suddenly changed his approach, after spending some time in the hands of the early mormons. Was his life threatened? Was there 'another' manuscript? It's interesting.

He changed his tactics after he was basically given a six month restraining order not to harm the person or property of Joseph Smith by a Judge in an 1834 trial. Whether due to lack of money or discredited by the trial, Hurlbut turned over all of the information he had to Eber D. Howe who published it in his 1834 "Mormonism Unvailed'.

[Glenn101]

Easy, there different stories and I would not expect an author to invent similar names. That the stories are different explains all of what you have tried to do, of course there are discrpencies of names, places, and people in two different stories. This is the precise reason statiticians and people who study style and word prints do not and would not use your criteria to determine authorship. Your approach is much too easy to explain, therefore experts do not apply what you have done.

This is interesting since Spaulding died in 1816 and the Book of Mormon was translated in ... Never mind, those are facts. I apologize. Now just where is that second manuscript???

Glenn

[robuchan]

Is there one place I can read a summary of Uncle Dale's theory. Or highlights of the pertinent information. There is a lot of information on his websites but it all seems scattered about and I get lost.