Spin-off from the Spalding-Rigdon Thread

[mfbukowski]

Clearly there is work to be done in that area- but education about the facts is different from the facts themselves.

The task is to get the facts out into the chapels and pews, but that task never leaves us. Some who lean toward a fundamentalist stance may yet have their faith shaken, it is true, but we need to move beyond fundamentalism and see the big picture.

As has been mentioned on another thread, it seems the critics virtually always take a fundamentalist stand and are expecting every aspect of the gospel to be somehow scientifically proven or disproven by things like word print analyses.

I have always found that startling because I have never taken much of anything about the gospel literally. Revelations are inspired thoughts conveyed to very imperfect men who associate with others and have their own personalities and foibles and anyone who doesn't understand that.....

Well, I guess they don't understand it. I frankly don't care much at all about how we got the BOM, what is important is that we have it, and it is a revelation from God which can only be learned spiritually. I find the story interesting, but it is pretty much irrelevant to my faith and the importance of the MESSAGE (Word, Logos) in my life.

But I'm weird I guess.

[Uncle Dale]

...

But I'm weird I guess.

More likely, you're what a Latter Day Saint will be like in about 2050.

Hope you can stick around to see if I'm right about that.

UD

[mfbukowski]

More likely, you're what a Latter Day Saint will be like in about 2050.

Hope you can stick around to see if I'm right about that.

UD

I don't think I'll make it to 102. But I hope you are right, and I am doing my best to spread the word.

[MCB]

MF, If you see the BoM as a satire against religious fundamentalism, then maybe my work will also help the faithful. Wondered why I always respected you over at Catholic.com.

[Facsimile 3]

Clearly there is work to be done in that area- but education about the facts is different from the facts themselves.

The task is to get the facts out into the chapels and pews, but that task never leaves us. Some who lean toward a fundamentalist stance may yet have their faith shaken, it is true, but we need to move beyond fundamentalism and see the big picture.

As has been mentioned on another thread, it seems the critics virtually always take a fundamentalist stand and are expecting every aspect of the gospel to be somehow scientifically proven or disproven by things like word print analyses.

I have always found that startling because I have never taken much of anything about the gospel literally. Revelations are inspired thoughts conveyed to very imperfect men who associate with others and have their own personalities and foibles and anyone who doesn't understand that.....

Well, I guess they don't understand it. I frankly don't care much at all about how we got the BOM, what is important is that we have it, and it is a revelation from God which can only be learned spiritually. I find the story interesting, but it is pretty much irrelevant to my faith and the importance of the MESSAGE (Word, Logos) in my life.

But I'm weird I guess.

Looking at the big picture (the whole) of how the Church works to bring spirituality and joy into your life instead of fixating on the imperfect human parts as a source of bitterness?...WEIRD.

[wenglund]

Solomon Spalding only ever wrote one piece of manuscript fiction,

and it was not composed in old fashioned (Elizabethan/KJV) English.

Are you suggesting that this is Matt Roper's conclusion? If so, could you please provide a citation?

If that is not what you are suggesting, then you may want to make that clear.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Glenn101]

When all this word-print studying is done and everyone concludes that Solomon Spalding never wrote anything in the Book of Mormon, I hope some smart guys with their thinkin' machines will calculate the odds of a bunch of people claiming that the Book of Mormon sounds like SS writing and then a whole slew (like hundreds) of SS-used words and word combinations turning up (cheifly) in the Book of Alma. The coincidence is staggering.

It is the Spalding theory which is staggering, I am afraid. It has never had very much evidential support.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...Matt Roper's conclusion?

...

The on-line articles we need to consult, in order to determine

just what the contemporary LDS standard of scholarly authority

might be, are Roper's 2005 and 2009 articles:

The Mythical "Manuscript Found"

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=2&id=584

Myth, Memory, and "Manuscript Found"

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=21&num=2&id=778

Which might be compared with Art Vanick's c. 2007 on-line reply:

[Glenn101]

Uncle Dale:

Faithful Mormons may be excused from NOT seeing things that way.

As for our friends on the web, they can read the Maxwell Institute

publications and tell themselves that the problem is solved.

As long as there are those who want to believe in the Spaulding/Rigdon theory, the problem will not be solved. But, yes, you can excuse the faithful LDS, and even the interested non-LDS who do not think the theory holds water because the Spaulding/Rigdon proponents have offered so very little evidence to prop up their theory. The Jockers/Criddle work was hoped to be the defining moment, but it seems that there are some serious problems with it as applied to the Book of Mormon.

None of which will halt the impact of 19th century authorship

claims upon potential LDS converts (and upon recent converts who

are drifting toward inactivity).

I have met no inactive LDS who went inactive due to doubts cast by the Spaulding/Rigdon theory. It's impact would be minimal, I would think, but I have no statistics to back up this assertion.

Pronouncing these 19th century authorship claims "dead" may help

internet Mormons feel more assured in their beliefs -- but they

are NOT the ones who most need that reassurance.

In the case of wavering investigators and wavering new converts,

the Provo-printed stuff may be of some use --- but it would be

even better if it offered solid, reliable evidence.

I think the shoe is on the other foot. Those who espouse the Spalding/Rigdon authorship theory are the ones who need to produce the solid, reliable evidence. Thus far, their offerings are negligible.

In the case of Mr. Spalding's manuscripts, the Maxwell Institute

papers have not done a very good job, and will not serve the

purpose of supplying solid, reliable facts.

Sorry about that.

UD

.

I am not sure what solid, reliable facts you are talking about. Its almost as if you were now asking that the Maxwell Institute prove a negative. The only manuscript extant from Solomon Spaulding that is pertinent bears no resemblance to the Book of Mormon. The only hope for the Spalding/Rigdon theory is for the proponents to somehow find enough evidence to support a reasonable conclusion that there was indeed a second manuscript. But it is not the Maxwell Instute that has fallen down.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...

the proponents to somehow find enough evidence to support a reasonable conclusion

that there was indeed a second manuscript.

...

My thoughts are -- that the 19th century multiple authorship claims

began by stating that the manuscript comprising Spalding's "Roman story"

was NOT the Spalding story that his early associates remembered reading

or hearing read to them -- that caused them to make their 1832-34 assertions.

Thus, the whole matter begins with witnesses saying that the "Roman story"

is not what they are talking about. They are talking about a fictional

history of ancient America written in old fashioned English.

Why should a disinterested outside observer immediately conclude that

the only fictional history Mr. Spalding ever wrote is the very same

one that the original witnesses say was NOT the story they recalled?

In first grade Bobby hit me and I told the teacher. I told her Mary

did not hit me -- that it was Bobby. But only Mary showed up to talk

with the teacher. Why should my teacher have assumed that Mary hit me?

UD

[wenglund]

I'll let somebody else quote exactly what Roper has to say about

how many historical fiction manuscripts Spalding wrote, and what

examination of writings tells the modern investigator about them.

Since you clearly implied it in your OP, you ought not evasively shift that burden to someone else to prove or disprove it. Either back up the insinuation, or clarify otherwise. It's only fair and right.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncle Dale]

Since you clearly implied it in your OP, you ought not evasively shift that

burden to someone else to prove or disprove it. Either back up the insinuation,

or clarify otherwise. It's only fair and right.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What I said, is that the non-expert LDS apologist would be

better off citing Roper generally, when it comes to talking

about Spalding's manuscript production, than citing the details

having to do with evidence.

I also said that getting into discussion of the details of evidence

for and against multiple manuscripts is a "tar baby" of controversy

that is of no practical use to the LDS apologist (expert or otherwise).

It is also my contention that Roper has not provided a good review

of the evidence for a Spalding manuscript written in old-fashioned

English, etc.

But, rather than placing myself in the position of being accused of

cherry-picking his conclusions, or selectively citing his remarks,

I'll let somebody else begin that conversation.

I'm not trying to irritate the LDS readers by saying that. Noel has

expressed an interest in examining certain parts of the Roper papers,

and will doubtless join the conversation soon, in order to do that.

Since this thread was essentially his idea, let's give him some time

in which to lay out here the succinct points he hopes to see examined.

In the meanwhile, if you disagree with me, and feel it is better to

cite Roper's details (rather than referring to his conclusions

generally), then by all means tell us what you see him saying about

the possibility for multiple manuscripts and the characterization of

the contents of such writings.

UD

[Vance]

I'll let somebody else quote exactly what Roper has to say about

how many historical fiction manuscripts Spalding wrote, and what

examination of writings tells the modern investigator about them.

I thought you knew how many historical fiction manuscripts Spalding wrote. After all you posted this.

If we exclude the Library of Congress' Solomon Spalding manuscript,

we are left with one fictional story holograph preserved at Oberlin

College -- which shows evidence of being fragments of two separate

drafts bundled together.

So, there is only one fictional story by Spalding available. But we are to believe that Spalding was the source of the BOM because there is information out there, that when looked at in a certain way, can be used as possible evidence of another story's existence.

Is this correct?

[Uncle Dale]

...

So, there is only one fictional story by Spalding available.

There are ostensibly two of them -- but the second document

is in the handwriting of his cousin's wife and shows signs

of re-writing in the years well after his death. This story,

in the Library of Congress, is cataloged under Spalding's

authorship and came as a donation from his family. It contains

numerous thematic and language parallels with Nauvoo-era theology.

However, since Spalding died two decades before that religion

was being preached, those odd textual parallels are more of

a hindrance than a help, in establishing his authorship. That

is why I avoided introducing this document. It has little in

common with the Book of Mormon and has never been word-print

tested, to determine whether parts of it came from Spalding.

But we are to believe that Spalding was the source of the BOM because

there is information out there, that when looked at in a certain way,

can be used as possible evidence of another story's existence.

Is this correct?

No. Mormons should not automatically believe that; and they can

generally refer people to Matt Roper's two papers on the subject

as being supportive of a reasoned, critical point of view.

However, the audience comprised by your "we" includes more than

just observant Mormons. That audience includes the opponents of

Mormonism, ex-LDS who disbelieve but are not active opponents,

RLDS whose interest in the book and history is different from LDS,

current investigators of Mormonism as potential converts, students

of religion and/or history who are only peripherally interested in

Mormon origins, disinterested professional commentators/reviewers,

the compilers of encyclopedia entries, etc. etc.

In other words, the audience comprised by your "we" includes myself

and others, whom you might expect will not always agree with you.

The better way to re-phrase your question would be:

"Is it reasonable to entertain the possibility that Spalding was

the source of some of the BOM storyline and text, because there is

information out there, that when compiled, compared and contrasted,

can be used as a basis for the assertion that Spalding wrote more

than one fictional history, and at least one story in archaic English?"

If such an inquiry is unreasonable ------ or, if it becomes more

unreasonable as additional evidence is collected and examined, then

that is an important point for us to discuss.

If such an inquiry is reasonable but futile, then I'm not sure that

we have much to discuss here.

After all, it might be reasonable to hold open the possibility that

golden plates truly supplied the text for the Bom, but it is no doubt

futile to search for such plates, or to assume that their existence

can be documented, beyond what the available evidence tells us.

Both the plates and Spalding's purported archaic English manuscript

are gone, and beyond our ability to recover. The objective "outsider"

who happens upon these old controversies regarding authorship must

form his/her conclusions without access to such literary proof.

Agreed?

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

Both the plates and Spalding's purported archaic English manuscript

are gone, and beyond our ability to recover. The objective "outsider"

who happens upon these old controversies regarding authorship must

form his/her conclusions without access to such literary proof.

...

Let me give you a theoretical example of the "best" we might hope for.

1. An authentic, 1828 letter written by a Palmyra resident is discovered

next week, and the writer includes substantial information regarding the

reported "golden plates" for the Book of Mormon. This information is

mostly "news" to modern readers and provides "new" details supportive

of the traditional LDS historical claims.

2. An authentic, 1816 letter written by Solomon Spalding is discovered,

in which he mentions writing several manuscripts on the fictional history

of ancient America. He informs his reader that he has sent one of those

documents to the New England Historical Society under a pen name, for

future preservation.

In my theoretical case, neither of these imagined two letters would

prove or disprove the old authorship controversy --- but it would be

reasonable for somebody keep an eye out for such discoveries, and

perhaps even conduct active searches for similar evidence.

On the other hand, I've met people who disagree with what I just said;

and who might tell me that the search for artifacts supportive of

Mormon views is a reasonable endeavor; while searches for anything

supportive of a Spalding authorship would be an unreasonable activity.

UD

[Vance]

There are ostensibly two of them -- but the second document

is in the handwriting of his cousin's wife and shows signs

of re-writing in the years well after his death. This story,

in the Library of Congress, is cataloged under Spalding's

authorship and came as a donation from his family.

Ostensibly?

Because it "is in the handwriting of his cousin's wife"? And "shows signs

of re-writing in the years well after his death"?

I would suggest that a reasonable person would conclude that the second document is ostensibly NOT of Spalding's authorship.

But heah!, I don't really mean to rain on your one man Spalding parade.

However, the audience comprised by your "we" includes more than

just observant Mormons. That audience includes the opponents of

Mormonism, ex-LDS who disbelieve but are not active opponents,

RLDS whose interest in the book and history is different from LDS,

current investigators of Mormonism as potential converts, students

of religion and/or history who are only peripherally interested in

Mormon origins, disinterested professional commentators/reviewers,

the compilers of encyclopedia entries, etc. etc.

Well, let's hope that they aren't persuaded by reasonable evidence, after all "we" don't want them to sound more ridiculous than they already do.

"Is it reasonable to entertain the possibility that Spalding was

the source of some of the BOM storyline and text, because there is

information out there, that when compiled, compared and contrasted,

can be used as a basis for the assertion that Spalding wrote more

than one fictional history, and at least one story in archaic English?"

Well, when you don't have anything more substantial to hold on to, any straw will do.

If such an inquiry is reasonable but futile, then I'm not sure that

we have much to discuss here.

This is the one that I am going with. It is rather apparent that the "Spalding theory" is futile.

Both the plates and Spalding's purported archaic English manuscript

are gone, and beyond our ability to recover. The objective "outsider"

who happens upon these old controversies regarding authorship must

form his/her conclusions without access to such literary proof.

Agreed?

ABSOLUTELY!! Even the book itself directs the individual toward a more sure and reliable way to know the truth.

[Glenn101]

My thoughts are -- that the 19th century multiple authorship claims

began by stating that the manuscript comprising Spalding's "Roman story"

was NOT the Spalding story that his early associates remembered reading

or hearing read to them -- that caused them to make their 1832-34 assertions.

Thus, the whole matter begins with witnesses saying that the "Roman story"

is not what they are talking about. They are talking about a fictional

history of ancient America written in old fashioned English.

Why should a disinterested outside observer immediately conclude that

the only fictional history Mr. Spalding ever wrote is the very same

one that the original witnesses say was NOT the story they recalled?

In first grade Bobby hit me and I told the teacher. I told her Mary

did not hit me -- that it was Bobby. But only Mary showed up to talk

with the teacher. Why should my teacher have assumed that Mary hit me?

UD

Dale, do you have any evidence from witnesses contemporary to the time that Solomon Spaulding was doing the writing? Most if not all of the comments were made twenty or more years after anyone could have read or have heard anyone reading from the document. (Of course, Doctor Hurlbut would never stoop to leading a witness either.)

Also, as Matt Roper points out in his article, Matilda Davison, the widow of Spalding only recounts one manuscript. Her accounts point to the one that is was found in a trunk in her attic as the one recovered from the Patterson printing establishment, the one she gave to Hurlbut, and the only one that has ever been found (of course there are other writings of his that have been found, but no other story manuscript about the ancient settlers of the America's).

A disinterested observer would probably not care a bit one way or the other. There is no reason why an interested observer "immediately conclude that the only fictional history Mr. Spalding ever wrote is the very same one that the original witnesses say was NOT the story they recalled". But after carefully weighing the evidence, most of them do not agree that there is much evidence for a second manuscript.

By the way, why was Mary even called to the office if you told the principle that Booby hit you and not Mary? Did that principle have something against Mary and refuse to believe that Mary had not hit you?

Glenn

[Vance]

Dale, do you have any evidence from witnesses contemporary to the time that Solomon Spaulding was doing the writing?

He don't need no stinking evidence.

[wenglund]

In the meanwhile, if you disagree with me, and feel it is better to

cite Roper's details (rather than referring to his conclusions

generally), then by all means tell us what you see him saying about

the possibility for multiple manuscripts and the characterization of

the contents of such writings. UD

My question wasn't specific to Roper's "details" (my original question didn't even contain the word), but was specific to the implication in your OP (which would include the alleged "his conclusions generally"). In fact, my question explicitly included the word "conclusion".

Since it was YOUR implication, the burden rest with YOU to either back it up or clarify otherwise. Is that asking YOU too much?

And, please, spare telling us all the things you have said which don't directly respond to the question that I asked. It's a little tiresome having to cut through all the verbal fat only to find there is no meat.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncle Dale]

Dale, do you have any evidence from witnesses contemporary to the time that

Solomon Spaulding was doing the writing?

He obviously ceased writing when he died, in 1816 -- so

"any evidence from witnesses contemporary" would necessarily

have to come from 1816 or before. There is indeed evidence

that the man lived in certain places and got his name into

the newspapers and public records before 1816. However, I

know of no documents dated from 1816 or before which shed

light upon what he was writing.

The situation is roughly similar to the problem we face in

documenting what Joseph Smith, Jr. was experiencing in 1820.

There is evidence that he existed and that his family was

living in a certain place at that time -- but we do not

have "any evidence from witnesses contemporary with 1820."

The best we can do is to move ahead a few years and look of

the earliest "near-contemporary" evidence for Smith's 1820

activities. Same goes for Spalding. The best we can do is

to move ahead and look at the earliest preserved mentions

of his writings.

Most if not all of the comments were made twenty or more years after anyone could

have read or have heard anyone reading from the document. (Of course, Doctor Hurlbut

would never stoop to leading a witness either.)

So far, that is the case. His daughter once mentioned that

she remembered his submitting a story for publication in

an Eastern magazine in about 1813. There are a few minor

newspaper items which he may have written before 1816. In

order to find anything more from 1816 or before, somebody

would have to conduct an active search. So far, that sort

of thing has been limited to a one-hour inquiry at a library

in Connecticut -- which turned up a single letter written

by the man. A few hours' search at Dartmouth College turned

up another letter and some old records mentioning Spalding.

I'd guess that less than a day's research has ever been

conducted in New England, for Spalding correspondence, his

family documents, etc. Until somebody has the incentive to

actively search out such materials, the years prior to his

death remain relatively undocumented.

Also, as Matt Roper points out in his article, Matilda Davison, the widow

of Spalding only recounts one manuscript. Her accounts point to the one that

is was found in a trunk in her attic as the one recovered from the Patterson

printing establishment, the one she gave to Hurlbut, and the only one that

has ever been found (of course there are other writings of his that have been

found, but no other story manuscript about the ancient settlers of the America's).

I believe that she mentions that her husband had other writings. Her daughter

definitely mentions several manuscripts. The entire reason that a trunk of his

was left behind in New York, in the 1820s, was because it was full of his

papers and was thus too cumbersome to quickly and easily move. Again, the

daughter speaks of her father's sermons and other personal papers as having

been in that trunk.

Unless some questioner actually asked Mrs. Spalding about the contents and

description of the Oberlin "Roman story," she would have had no reason to

talk about it. Unless somebody specifically asked her about the reported

"Frogs of Wyndham" story, she would have had no reason to mention that either.

The Mormons interviewed the widow in 1839, and had a perfect occasion to

ask her about the "Roman story," or about her late husband's various writings.

Just because the 1839 LDS interview did not report on the number of the

man's manuscripts, supplies no reason to assume that his widow never saw

more than one of them.

Matt Roper agrees that the Oberlin manuscript ("Roman story") shows signs of

being two draft copies, one a re-write of the first, mostly obliterated

document. Just because Spalding's widow is not recorded as speaking about

his re-writing the Roman story, is no reason to assume he did not do so.

In late 1816 or early 1817, Spalding's widow reportedly took a manuscript

of her late husband back to Robert Patterson, Sr., in Pittsburgh, to

re-submit it for possible publication. Just because Spalding's widow

is not recorded as speaking about that second submittal to the publisher,

is no reason to assume that she did not do so.

In short -- lack of evidence presents a weaker case for an argument than

does a supply of evidence: and attempting to prove a negative assumption

has always been a difficult endeavor for any debater, lawyer or historian.

A disinterested observer would probably not care a bit one way or the other.

That depends very much upon what that observer has been told. If he has been

told that the Book of Mormon came from golden plates, he might care very

much to see evidence for that report. If he is told that 116 pages of the

book have been lost, he might care very much to see evidence of that fact.

The same sort of situation applies to reports about Spalding's writings. The

disinterested observer might not care to study all the evidence in that matter,

but he probably would wish to assure himself that he had been told the truth,

There is no reason why an interested observer "immediately conclude that the

only fictional history Mr. Spalding ever wrote is the very same one that the

original witnesses say was NOT the story they recalled". But after carefully

weighing the evidence, most of them do not agree that there is much evidence for

a second manuscript.

That's a good way to put it -- an honest summary. There is, of course, evidence

from multiple old sources. It is insufficient evidence to convince an LDS

apologist that it has "much" valid historical/putative importance. It may or

may not be insufficient evidence to convince an objective observer that it

has "much" value. I say that, because I doubt that very many such persons

have ever sat down and reviewed that evidence, piece-by-piece.

By the way, why was Mary even called to the office if you told the principle

that Booby hit you and not Mary? Did that principle have something against Mary

and refuse to believe that Mary had not hit you?

Glenn

As I recall, I was punished for hitting Bobby back, and Mary was punished

along with me for letting Bobby hit me, without reporting the crime.

Bobby went scott-free.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

Is that asking YOU too much?

...

If Noel doesn't submit his postings within the next 24 hours,

I'll step in and perform the task for him.

My first question will be, "Is there any evidence that Solomon

Spalding wrote anything in archaic English?" I will then refer

to Roper, to see what light he sheds upon that question -- and

then to the available evidence, in order to see what is there.

Hopefully Noel will spare me that task -- as I was talked away

from other work, in order to help facilitate an "assessment" of

Roper's two papers here (which we have not even begun to do).

UD

.

[wenglund]

If Noel doesn't submit his postings within the next 24 hours,

I'll step in and perform the task for him.

My first question will be, "Is there any evidence that Solomon

Spalding wrote anything in archaic English?" I will then refer

to Roper, to see what light he sheds upon that question -- and

then to the available evidence, in order to see what is there.

Hopefully Noel will spare me that task -- as I was talked away

from other work, in order to help facilitate an "assessment" of

Roper's two papers here (which we have not even begun to do).

UD

Are you anticipating that Noel's posts in the next 24hrs will substantiate your implied allegation that Roper generally concluded that "Solomon Spalding only ever wrote one piece of manuscript fiction"? (All I am looking for is a simple "yes" or "no" answer to this question.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncle Dale]

...

implied allegation

...

Would that be the orphaned, shirt-tail relative of a positive assertion?

Is this what you are talking about? ---->

After reading Matt Roper's recent papers, and similar articles

responding to claims for multiple 19th century authorship (Spalding,

Rigdon, etc.) for the Book -- how comfortable are you with this

historical conclusion:

Solomon Spalding only ever wrote one piece of manuscript fiction,

and it was not composed in old fashioned (Elizabethan/KJV) English.

1. Totally agree ( )

2. Not convinced one way of the other ( )

3. Totally disagree ( )

I won't set up a section for votes -- but am interested to hear

what your views are and what evidence supports those views.

After all, if Mr. Spalding only ever wrote one story -- and that

story has been examined, and is NOT in old-style English, similar to

the language of the Book of Mormon, then this old controversy is over.

UD

[mfbukowski]

[Uncle Dale]

Actually, I'm all for enforcing the prohibitions on implied allegations.

That is not to imply that I am alleging that you have said or done

anything requiring such prohibiting -- (but, one cannot be too careful!)

UD