Spin-off from the Spalding-Rigdon Thread

[Glenn101]

But then again. I've already sullied myself by publishing in that literature. Maybe that's why review of my LLC paper is taking so long.

Bruce, I don't know much about the peer review/acceptance for publication process. Do you get updates, or does a paper fall into a black hole and only emerges in the light when/if it is published? Is the length of the delay an indicator of a stringent review process, or is it something one just does not know?

Glenn

[noel00]

Bruce,

Of course it's possible to fall in love with a theory. And of course that could lead to serious errors.

In the case of the S-R theory, however, we have historical evidence from multiple witnesses that at least one alleged author (Spalding) modified his style to imitate the Bible. I did not make that up. We also have evidence that one of the other alleged authors (Rigdon) claimed to have revelations which he recorded. I did not make that up either. You yourself made the claim that Rigdon's late-period revelations mapped closer to the Book of Mormon than his earlier non-revelatory writing. I have not confirmed your claim, but I suspect you could be correct.

Of course, I realize that I have a bias -- especially so because I have taken a public position on this issue. It's something I have acknowledged before and I know it's something I have to be careful about. You also have a bias, as do those who have made committed to the Smith-as-Sole-Author theory. We all need to be aware of our biases.

Craig

[Bruce Schaalje]

Of course it's possible to fall in love with a theory. And of course that could lead to serious errors.

Of course, I realize that I have a bias -- especially so because I have taken a public position on this issue. It's something I have acknowledged before and I know it's something I have to be careful about. You also have a bias. . . We all need to be aware of our biases.

Craig,

Commendably you have been very open in admitting your bias, and it

[Uncle Dale]

...

Any other way I can help make this process more fun?

...

Not really. You've been a gentleman to share as much as you have

so far. When you publish, I'll look for any details that today

spark my curiosity, but which are currently unavailable.

If you can think of a way to excise biblical quotations from

any particular section of BoM text, let us know. I'm afraid

the the deletion would leave behind "gaps" of grammar and

phraseology which would render the resultant text abnormal.

Perhaps if I manipulate the formula for deleting problematic

words, I could even force your word-print to match my own.

There must be a special spot in Dante's Inferno for such cunning.

Fun? Not so much fun as the exhilaration of doing things nobody

else is doing. Like finding an antique Carthaginian coin under

the stump of a California redwood, growing since Columbus' day.

Maybe I've not yet washed out the last traces of Mormonism

from my inquisitive persona, eh?

UD

[Glenn101]

In most cases papers are submitted online, and there is a website for checking on the progress of the paper through the review/decision process. Reviewers (usually 2) are usually asked to return the review within a month, but it

[MCB]

Fun? Not so much fun as the exhilaration of doing things nobody

else is doing. Like finding an antique Carthaginian coin under

the stump of a California redwood, growing since Columbus' day.

Maybe I've not yet washed out the last traces of Mormonism

from my inquisitive persona, eh?

Nothing like being a recalcitrant conservative in viewing alternatives to the traditional view of the BoM. But, on the other hand, some of your behavior only makes the search more interesting.

[Bruce Schaalje]

Thanks for the info. If the paper in question is a critique of another paper will the authors of the critiqued paper be consulted or is this an independent process?

Glenn

That's completely up to the editor. There's no constitution for these things. Some journals actually solicit and publish reactions from several experts to controversial issues.

Bruce

[Glenn101]

It seems that this thread is grinding down. I am a little disappointed that no one wanted to discuss/dispute the points that Bruce brought into the discussion. Winning by default is not something I consider fun.

Glenn

[noel00]

I heard there is a another paper to be published byJockers et al and this one I think has something to comment on the presence of Rigdon's signal in the BofC and the BOA. We shall see.

[Uncle Dale]

It seems that this thread is grinding down. I am a little disappointed

...

I'm disappointed that Bro. Englund did not want to review the evidence for

a Spalding manuscript written in archaic English. That was more or less the

purpose of this thread -- that, and to give noel00 an opportunity to dig

out problematic stuff from Roper and similar recent LDS rebuttals.

I'm still open to that exploration.

If all Spalding ever wrote was his Roman story, then the piles of testimony

for a Spalding manuscript written in archaic English must somehow be mistaken

or purposefully fabricated by over a dozen different early witnesses.

Strange, that all those people, some of whom never met and were separated

in time and space, should have all replaced true memories of the Roman story

(not a Spalding manuscript written in archaic English) with false recollections

of some biblical-sounding tale written in archaic English.

Perhaps one day somebody else will start a thread on that topic, and we

can all join in and inspect the evidence, while reading and re-reading

the two Roper links I provided, and other LDS commentary.

Uncle Dale

[All-Seeing Eye]

Strange, that all those people, some of whom never met and were separated

in time and space, should have all replaced true memories of the Roman story

(not a Spalding manuscript written in archaic English) with false recollections

of some biblical-sounding tale written in archaic English.

Is the standard apologetic answer to this that all of those false recollections were prompted by Hurlbut?

[Uncle Dale]

Is the standard apologetic answer to this that all of those false recollections were prompted by Hurlbut?

Dan Vogel once supplied a somewhat evolved version of that notion.

If I can paraphrase his thesis correctly, it states that Hurlbut

got the misinformation ball rolling, by implanting false memories

in the minds of his original 1833 statement providers. This was an

old idea, originated by James H. Fairchild and popularized by the

infamous Fawn Brodie.

But Vogel then took the process a step beyond those earlier explainers,

and argued that ALL subsequent non-LDS testimony regarding Spalding

and Rigdon had been poisoned by the 1833 false memories, and that later

statement-givers were relying upon what they had read, or heard, from

E.D. Howe's 1834 book, which featured the pro-Spalding evidence.

Vogel's theory relies upon the unfounded assumption that practically

everybody living in the 19th century knew about the Spalding-Rigdon

claims of 1833-34, and allowed that knowledge to so overwhelm the

truth, that they ALL gave false testimony -- either by design or by

accident.

Thus, when in 1842 Robert Patterson, Sr. (Spalding's hopeful publisher)

was interviewed by the local Baptist minister in Pittsburgh, Patterson

was so influenced by the 1833-34 anti-Mormon testimony that he himself

gave a false statement, in saying that Solomon Spalding's manuscript

was a "singular work, chiefly in the style of our English translation

of the Bible."

LDS Apostle John E. Page had an opportunity to cross-examine Patterson

that same year; and if Page could have obtained some disavowal or

contradictory explanation from Patterson, we can be certain Page would

have published it in his series of pro-Mormon articles, published in

the local newspaper that year -- newspaper items which both referenced

the Spalding-Rigdon claims and the Baptist minister who interviewed

Patterson in the first place:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/sain1872.htm#101576

We can thus be certain the Robert Patterson, Sr. stuck by his statement,

and that his mention of Spalding's ""singular work, chiefly in the style

of our English translation of the Bible" was not a misquote.

According to Vogel's explanation, Patterson must have actually seen

Solomon Spalding's Roman story -- but, under the continuing influence

of D. P. Hurlbut's prior false memory implantations, Patterson himself

became an abettor in the anti-Mormon-persecution-by-false-statement scheme.

A similar case might be made against the Conneaut school-teacher, Mr.

William H. Leffingwell. The man's presence in the Conneaut area during

Spalding's tenure there is reasonably documented by his family having

resided in the general area, and by an indirect endorsement given him

by L. L. Rice, the 1884 discoverer of Spalding's Roman story. Rice had

earlier lived in northern Ohio and there reprinted Howe's 1834 book a

few years later. Rice was well acquainted will the prominent people

of the area between Cleveland and Conneaut, and knew Leffingwell. Not

only that, but Rice trusted Leffingwell's description of Spalding's

writings as the testimony of an eyewitness from the 1810-12 period.

Leffingwell said: "[spalding's manuscript] was full of Bible expressions,

and as I had read the Bible from lid to lid I knew the proper phraseology

to use. I corrected the grammar, and had to reconstruct and transpose

entries to make god English out of it. I was engaged three months,

and my notes and pencil marks may be found on every page. ... He wanted

it to conform to Bible language."

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/MO/Misr1850.htm#052985

According to Vogel's theory, even if Mr. Leffingwell was acquainted

with Solomon Spalding, at Conneaut, c. 1812, the story that Leffingwell

saw there must have been the Roman story. Thus, when Leffingwell gave

a statement years after the fact, his original memory of proofreading

and correcting Spalding's Roman story became corrupted, and Leffingwell

gave out the false account of having worked upon another "biblical" story.

Vogel's theory works for any new discoveries that might be uncovered in

the future as well. We simply replace references to Spalding manuscripts

composed in archaic "biblical" English, with the words "Roman story,"

and we will thus have the testifier's "true" memory.

The reason that all future discoveries of references to archaic English

in Spalding manuscripts is demonstrably false, is that everybody in the

19th century knew the Spalding-Rigdon authorship claims and those claims

corrupted the memories of every single person providing evidence -- even

if their evidence is something as minor as Spalding having lived in a

certain place at a certain time, with certain friends and neighbors.

Spalding only wrote one story -- all other recollections are either

corrupted or are overt lies.

If I've misrepresented Dan's thesis, I'll be most happy to adjust this.

UD

[Glenn101]

.............................

Leffingwell said: "[spalding's manuscript] was full of Bible expressions,

and as I had read the Bible from lid to lid I knew the proper phraseology

to use. I corrected the grammar, and had to reconstruct and transpose

entries to make god English out of it. I was engaged three months,

and my notes and pencil marks may be found on every page. ... He wanted

it to conform to Bible language."

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/MO/Misr1850.htm#052985

..............................

UD

Leffingwell also said:

"Col. Leffingwell commenced by saying: "Long ago in the past, I have forgotten the year, Mr. Spalding wrote a drama called 'the Book of Mormon,' in a hotel at Conneaut, Ashtabula county, O., where I had been teaching school."

Glenn

[noel00]

Dale, lets assume that Solomon Spalding wrote the historical sections of the Book of Mormon. Where would he have got the names "Mormon" and "Moroni"? We know the puffin birds in the area were refered to as "Mormon Articus " amd "Mormon Glacious". Did Spalding visit the beaches on the eastern seaboard? "Moroni" would have been part of the Captain Kidd stories? What sources were available to Spalding?

[Glenn101]

And now we come to a problematic part of Matilda Spaulding McKinstry's recollections:

"We removed from Conneaut to Pittsburg while I was still very young, but every circumstance of this removal is distinct in my memory. In that city my father had an intimate friend named Patterson, and I frequently visited Mr. Patterson's library with him, and heard my father talk about books with him. In 1816 my father died at Amity, Pennsylvania, and directly after his death my mother and myself went to visit at the residence of my mother's brother, William H. Sabine, at Onondaga Valley, Onondaga county, New York. Mr. Sabine was a lawyer of distinction and wealth, and greatly respected. We carried all our personal effects with us, and one of these was an old trunk, in which my mother had placed all my father's writings which had been preserved. I perfectly remember the appearance of this trunk, and of looking at its contents. There were sermons and other papers, and I saw a manuscript about an inch thick, closely written, tied with some of the stories my father in had written for me, one of which he called "The Frogs of Wyndham." On the outside of this manuscript were written the words, "Manuscript Found." I did not read it, but looked through it and had it in my hands many times, and saw the names I had heard at Conneaut, when my father read it to his friends. I was about eleven years of age at this time."

Mckinstry only mentions one manuscript. (Spalding's widow also only mentions one manuscript.) The manuscript that was in the trunk was the one given to Hurlbut. McKinstry says that she did not read it but looked through it many times and the names were the same names she had heard at Conneaut.

Re**** McKee also has some problems with his story. He defers to Matilda McKinstry for his recollections.

"But touching these I will give below his daughter's (Mrs. McKinstry's) recollections, recently narrated by her to me, which I think more full and explanatory than my own. This lady is still residing in Washington, D. C., with the family of her late son-in- law, Col. Seaton of the Census Bureau, in remarkably good health for a lady of her age. She corroborated her father's statement about his removal to Conneaut in 1809, his examining the Indian mounds &c., and distinctly recollected that he wrote two or more stories in support of the theory that the Indians of North America were lineal descendants of the Jews from Palestine. In the first of these he brought the Jews from Palestine to America via Italy during the reign of Constantine, and set forth that at Rome they engaged shipping to convey them to some place in Great Britain, but encountered stormy weather and were finally wrecked somewhere on the coast of New England. What became of the manuscript of this story she did not know with certainty but understood that it was published in some Eastern review or magazine.

This romance he afterwards abandoned and set about writing a more probable story founded on the history of the ten lost tribes of Israel. She thought her father must have had wonderful powers of imagination and memory, great command of language and facility of description. Many of his descriptions were of a historical and religious character. Others were grotesque and ludicrous in the extreme.

She remembered that in one of them, touching the mode of warfare in that day, (being hand to hand or man with man) he represented one of the parties having streaks of red paint upon their cheeks and foreheads to distinguish them from enemies in battle. This story he called "The Manuscript Found." It purported to give a history of the ten tribes, their disputes and dissensions concerning the religion of their fathers, their division into two parties; one called Nephites the other Lamanites; their bloody wars, followed by reunion and migration via the Red Sea to the Pacific Ocean; their residence for a long time in China; their crossing the ocean by Behrings Straits in North America, thus becoming the progenitors of the Indians who have inhabited or now live on this continent."

McKinstry does not mention the second manuscript in her statement. She does not mention anything about the Bering Staits, the Red Sea, or China. All of this is hearsay and is as deadly to the Spalding theory as it is helpful.

Glenn

Edited to add: When I type in McKee's first name, the board pornography sensors evidently feel that I am being vulgar and replace the last four letters with ****. It is not a typo.

[Uncle Dale]

...

What sources were available to Spalding?

Classical histories and epics -- such as the Aeneid, the Poems of Ossian,

the stories of Homer, old maps, etc.

For example, from the maps available in the Dartmouth College Library, he

might have viewed a map of Classical History around the Mediterranean,

which would have shown the Greek colony of Helorum on the island of Sicily,

or the waters off the coast of Gades (Cadiz) with a name like Gadeanton.

Elseon (in his Roman story) may have been derived from the classical

name for a certain mountain in Greece. La-mesa (Elseon's girl friend)

might be the Spamish name for a flat-topped mountain -- a spin-off

or parody of Mt. Elseon.

From a map of Africa could have come Cumorah and Moroni -- From a map of

western Pennsylvania, a name like Kishkumen.

From his Roman story we see that Spalding was prone to create lists of

unique names all starting with the same initial syllable, or containing

a common core syllable.

My guess -- Spalding took a classical name, such as Helorum, and from

the initial syllable, or a core syllable, concocted similar names --

such as Helaman, Helam, and Helem.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...the Bering Staits, the Red Sea, or China.

All of this is hearsay and is as deadly to the Spalding theory as it is helpful.

...

At this point, all I'm talking about is a Spalding manuscript written in

archaic English.

Since Matt Roper has adopted my explanation, of there having been at least

two drafts of Spalding's Roman story -- with the preserved manuscript being

the second draft -- Mormon apologists have a ready-made way out of this

problem.

All they have to say is, "Perhaps the first draft of Spalding's Roman story

contained a lot more archaic English than the second draft -- and the witnesses

were remembering that "bible-sounding" language in the discarded first draft."

What an easy explanation that would offer. But Mormons are reluctant to offer

such an idea, until somebody in authority first of all say it. If one of

The Brethren said exactly that, all the LDS would flock about to happily agree

with the new explanation, and Matt Roper could be a happy fellow.

In fact, Mormons have already admitted that Spalding could have written a

story which contained a lot of old-style English. Writing in 1857, Elder

Elias Harrison said: "Spaulding's "pretended history," how Ten Great Tribes

of Israel were induced to leave Assyria and cross a mighty ocean, the methods

of conveyance to the sea shore, the description of the leaders they required,

and the incidents of the journey peculiar to such hosts, could have furnished

no material for the Book of Mormon..." Elder Harrison had a lot more to say

about the subject, but his main point was that if Spalding had written a

biblical-style story about the Ten Tribes of Israel, it could have not been

much like the Book of Mormon at all.

The Conneaut area Mormon, Elder Erastus Rudd knew Solomon Spalding and his

report of Spalding's novel parallels what Elder Harrison had to say. Rudd's

reported description reads: "A superannuated Presbyterian preacher,

Solomon Spauldin by name, had written a romance on a few mounds at the above

named village, pretending that the ten tribes crossed from the eastern

hemisphere via the Behring Straits to this continent, and that said mounds

were built by a portion of them, to bury the dead after some hard fighting.

The novel, as I was told by those who heard it read, referred to them as

idolaters and not otherwise religious."

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/LDS/ldsnews2.htm#011678

Elder Rudd's description of Spalding's story does not mention whether it

was written in old-style English or not -- but says that the narrative

told of biblical people traveling to the Behring Straits, etc. Such a

novel could well have been composed to sound like biblical records.

Solomon Spalding's brother John, testified prior to 1851, that in his

brother's story "the tribe of Joseph, emigrated to America with a large

portion of the ten tribes whom Shalmanezer led away from Palestine, and

scattered among the Midian cities. This remnant of Joseph was soon

after its arrival divided into two nations..."

John's account does not mention whether his brother's story was written

in old-style English or not (but in an earlier statement he said it was);

however, John's description sounds rather similar to Erastus Rudd's account.

And yet, I have heard Mormons swear up and down, that:

1. Spalding only ever wrote one story

and

2. That story has been recovered and is not written in biblical English.

Why must we non-Mormons accept such an LDS conclusion as irrefutable truth?

UD

[Glenn101]

At this point, all I'm talking about is a Spalding manuscript written in

archaic English.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

And yet, I have heard Mormons swear up and down, that:

1. Spalding only ever wrote one story

and

2. That story has been recovered and is not written in biblical English.

Why must we non-Mormons accept such an LDS conclusion as irrefutable truth?

UD

Harrison was a witness to the manuscript? Or was he just responding to the stories floating around. Erastus Rudd left none of his own writings according to the notes I found on your link. The report is secondhand and is inconsistent with the reports of the Hurlbut affidavits, none of which mention the Behring Straits. None of the Hurlbut witnesses mention anything about most of the manuscript being written at Rudd's home. Neither does Mckinstry or Davison.

The Rudd secondhand report and the reports by McKinstry and Davison only mention one manuscript. Mckinstry, in her notarized statement, tells of the names Maroni, Mormon, Lamenite, Nephi she remembers having heard heard from her father reading his story. She then tells of seeing a manuscript in the trunk where her mother had placed it, along with her father's other writings, including "The Frogs of Wyndham". She said that she did not read it but went through it many times and saw therein the names she had heard in Conneaut. And what were those names? Maroni, Mormon, Lamenite, Nephi.

That was the manuscript that Hurlbut obtained, which contained none of those words. Her recollection of a second manuscript comes much later in her life. The evidence seems to point solidly to the manuscript in the trunk as the one returned by one of the Pattersons, and the one Hurlbut obtained.

If you, or anyone else, could come up with something contemporary with the 1809 through 1816 time period that would allude to a second archaic english manuscript, it would help your cause a lot. As of now, Matilda McKinstry's words sort of put out that fire.

Oh, by the way, Benjamin Johnson went on a mission to Ohio after all of this and had this to say:

"Among those baptized were some of the family of John Spaulding, brother of Solomon Spaulding of the Spaulding Manuscript story. This story, with every other previously invented, was paraded to defeat the Book of Mormon, and it should be remembered that in this vicinity lived Solomon Spaulding, and here he wrote "The Manuscript Found," which his brother, John Spaulding, publicly denied as being in no way possible connected with the Book of Mormon."

That is strange. Is the Hurlbut affidavit the only thing we have from John Spaulding? It is interesting that Johnson baptized some of John Spaulding's family after all that.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

Harrison was a witness to the manuscript? Or was he just responding to the stories floating around.

Elder Harrison was a journalist for the Liverpool "Millennial Star." He was

one of a few different early Mormons who wrote articles to show that the

witness testimony concerning Spalding's writings better matched a story

of members of the ten tribes, traveling by land and across the sea, and

coming into North America, than that testimony matched the Book of Mormon.

Harrison (and even Brigham Young's secretary, Elder George Reynolds) were

prepared to admit that Spalding had written a Ten Tribes novel, mimicking

a biblical records, such as 4th Esdras -- precisely because such a story

would have been something DIFFERENT from the Book of Mormon. And yet the

LDS of today will not grant even this rational possibility. Strange, hunh?

Erastus Rudd left none of his own writings according to the notes I found

on your link. The report is secondhand and is inconsistent with the reports

of the Hurlbut affidavits, none of which mention the Behring Straits.

I see Mormons accepting second-hand reports for historical events favorable

to the LDS version of history everywhere. Mormon historians frequently

include such second-hand and even third-hand accounts. When supported by

other evidence, second-hand accounts can be useful to history. Are they only

unacceptable when they come from non-LDS? But Rudd's report came to us

via Daniel Tyler, a respected LDS historian, the chronicler of the Mormon

Battalion. This same Mormon historian wrote hundreds (thousands?) of editorials

and articles during the late 1800s, and I've not seen a single one of them

challenged, due to Elder Tyler's unreliability. His report concerning

Erastus Rudd was published in the "Deseret News," which then had strict

controls over journalists submitting erroneous historical accounts --

and especially strict controls over statements concerning Church history.

Besides the Conneaut witnesses (some of whom say the Israelites in Spalding's

story journeyed by land and across the sea, to get to America) there are

other early eye-witnesses who recalled that Spalding wrote about Israelites

traveling by land and by sea, before entering North America. Are you saying

that we should trust the Conneaut witnesses, on being reliable, only where

they do not happen to mention some particular detail? If they do NOT say

Spalding had red hair, should we throw out any other recollections that

the man had that color of hair? If they do not happen to say that he

wore a black hat, should we discard any mentions by others that he did?

How is Spalding having written a story, which included a crossing of

some of the Ten Tribes into Canada, in any way harmful to Mormonism?

Like Elder Harrison, you should be saying ---> "If that is what Spalding

wrote, then there's no problem -- such an account is NOT in the Book of

Mormon, and the Ten Lost Tribes are barely mentioned in the Nephite Record."

None of the Hurlbut witnesses mention anything about most of the manuscript

being written at Rudd's home. Neither does Mckinstry or Davison.

Why should they? Rudd was a Mormon. He had accepted Mormonism AFTER

having read Spalding's writings. Why should the Conneaut witnesses

have taken time to bolster that decision? Were they advocates for

the LDS Church? There is firm evidence that Rudd lived within walking

distance of Spalding's residence at Conneaut. I drove between the

two locations in a car in 8 minutes. The land transfers to Rudd's

parents have been preserved. They got their land from Spalding. Also,

the Rudds' next-door-neighbor was Oliver Smith, one of the Conneaut

witnesses. Oliver testifies that Spalding once took his meals at

the Smith home, while Spalding's house at Conneaut was undergoing

construction. If Spalding was eating his meals with Oliver Smith,

each day for a 6 month period, why do you disbelieve that Spalding

could have stayed overnight with Oliver's neighbor? They all lived

on the same road -- you could see Oliver's house from Erastus' house.

The Rudd secondhand report and the reports by McKinstry and Davison only mention

one manuscript. Mckinstry, in her notarized statement, tells of the names Maroni,

Mormon, Lamenite, Nephi she remembers having heard heard from her father reading

his story. She then tells of seeing a manuscript in the trunk where her mother had

placed it, along with her father's other writings, including "The Frogs of Wyndham".

If there was only ever ONE manuscript, then was the Frogs story merely

one of that manuscript's chapters? If the Frogs story was part of the ONE

manuscript, then why is it not present in the Oberlin document?

LDS historical investigator Matthew Roper agrees that there were

evidently two drafts of the Roman story. Unless Solomon destroyed

each page of draft #1, as he wrote down each new page in draft #2,

there must have been TWO manuscripts for at least a period of time.

Such a situation would explain why a visitor to the Spalding home

at Conneaut later reported that during his visit, Spalding's wife

was using pages from her husband's story to wrap up item in. If

her husband had written TWO manuscripts, and the first draft was

no longer of any use, then pages from its pile could be used as

wrapping paper, waste paper etc.

If Spalding only ever wrote ONE manuscript, then his wife at

Conneaut must have been ripping pages out of a document that he

(and she, after his death) submitted to the Pattersons in

Pittsburgh, for hopeful publication. A strange thing, that.

She said that she did not read it but went through it many times and

saw therein the names she had heard in Conneaut. And what were those

names? Maroni, Mormon, Lamenite, Nephi.

The little girl could barely read at that time in her young life.

No wonder she did not recall all the words from either the Roman story,

or the Frogs story, or any other story her father had written. A child

of that age might recall fancy capital letters for names, or some other

features of a hand-written document; but I'd say her testimony is

not reliable, in our knowing for certain what words were in the novel.

That was the manuscript that Hurlbut obtained, which contained none of

those words. Her recollection of a second manuscript comes much later

in her life. The evidence seems to point solidly to the manuscript in

the trunk as the one returned by one of the Pattersons, and the one

Hurlbut obtained.

She mentions a second manuscript in later life -- But Aron Wright

mentioned it as early as 1833 and E. D. Howe as early as 1834. Other

witnesses mentioned that Solomon had written multiple manuscripts.

What reason is there to doubt that he did so, when even the current

LDS authority on the topic is ready to admit to TWO separate

manuscripts for the Roman story?

If you, or anyone else, could come up with something contemporary with

the 1809 through 1816 time period that would allude to a second archaic

english manuscript, it would help your cause a lot. As of now, Matilda

McKinstry's words sort of put out that fire.

You rely upon what she said, then? If she said something, should I believe

it? What she said is that the Roman story was NOT the story she recalled.

Just like Aron Wright said that the Roman story was NOT the story that

he was recalling, when he gave his statement for publication.

Yes, our locating a pre-1816 letter, in which Spalding mentioned that

he was writing a story in old style English, about Israelites coming

to America across the Behring Straits, would help clear up much of

the historical puzzle.

However, if such evidence were ever located, the Mormons would simply

revert back to Elder Harrison's earlier conclusion -- that such a

story could not have formed the basis for the Book of Mormon. And

Matt Roper could say that the Israelites account was probably just

part of the Oberlin manuscript's first draft -- the very pages that

Mrs. Spalding was using for wrapping paper because they were discarded.

Oh, by the way, Benjamin Johnson went on a mission to Ohio after all of

this and had this to say:

"Among those baptized were some of the family of John Spaulding, brother

of Solomon Spaulding of the Spaulding Manuscript story. This story, with

every other previously invented, was paraded to defeat the Book of Mormon,

and it should be remembered that in this vicinity lived Solomon Spaulding,

and here he wrote "The Manuscript Found," which his brother, John Spaulding,

publicly denied as being in no way possible connected with the Book of Mormon."

You just told me that I cannot refer to second-hand accounts. Who was telling

Benjamin, that John Spalding was denying that Solomon ever wrote a story

like that told in the BoM? John left behind TWO published statements on the

assertion that his brother Solomon wrote such a story. ---- But now, we must

believe Elder Johnson, who is quoting an unnamed person, paraphrasing an

unknown person, to be precise -- and will not even tell us that person's

name, let alone what details John's purported denial consisted of?

If you're going to construct reliable LDS history in that manner, why should

any of us non-LDS believe it is the truth?

More examples of early testimony for a biblical-sounding Spalding story,

in my next posting here...

UD

[Glenn101]

--------------------------

More examples of early testimony for a biblical-sounding Spalding story,

in my next posting here...

UD

I will wait for those before responding further.

But for the record, I am not categorically ruling out a second manuscript. But in my opinion, there are problems with that theory.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...

I am not categorically ruling out a second manuscript.

But in my opinion, there are problems with that theory.

...

As I've pointed out, Matt Roper has practically admitted to

there having been a second manuscript -- if only an earlier

draft of the document now preserved at Oberlin College.

Indeed, it makes sense that any would-be writer of an extensive

epic explaining America's prehistory would make several attempts

at getting the story down right. Not only do experienced, professional

fiction writers often compose several drafts of their stories --

first time writers are almost always compelled to do so because of

publisher's rejections. It should not surprise us that any particular

fiction writer is accused of having written multiple stories, or

multiple versions of the same story. What would surprise us is

if a writer seeking publication never wrote anything other than

one unfinished and absurd draft of a story.

Possibly Spalding's first draft was a more finished product than the

draft we now have available for study. I am not saying that as a

certainty, but it seems almost inevitable that ANY other version of

the Roman story would have been better, in terms of plotting. The

way the storyline of the Roman tale evolves, it cannot be ended.

The writer has gone out on a literary limb of a very dubious tree,

and literally begun to cut the limb off behind himself.

If Spalding's Roman protagonist, Fabius, is to somehow conclude

the story being told, the ancient American civilization must

survive the extermination of the terrible civil war which

threatens its very existence and is resulting in all the grave

mounds for great numbers of slain soldiers on both sides. And

yet, at the beginning of the story this same Fabius encounters

a surviving civilization with no mentions of extant grave mounds.

Fabius' first person narrative evolves into an omniscient third

person voice, telling a story that Fabius has no part in and has

evidently not encountered. How Solomon Spalding might have

expected the Patterson brothers of Pittsburgh to finish up his

tale, in a coherent manner, is anybody's guess. Why his wife

would re-submit the exact same, unfinished and unfinishable

literary mess back into the hands of the same Patterson after

her husband's death ---- and why that same Patterson would

accept and retain such a mess for publication consideration is

also beyond imagination.

Even if Solomon Spalding had no part whatsoever in composing the

Book of Mormon stories, it is an absurd conclusion to suppose that

he could not have written multiple drafts of multiple stories --

and that some of that fiction could have been in the style of

Elizabethan English, or Shakespearean English, or KJV English.

On that note, I'll present some more assertions of Spalding's doing

just that -- Please do not be offended by the sarcastic tone, Glenn;

because I've copied my main points from a communication with another

person entirely, in which the sharp comments make more sense:

-----

Either Solomon Spalding wrote a story in archaic English, or he did not. Let's

gather the evidence on that matter, no matter whether it serves to promote

the various BoM authorship theories or not. Let's at least finish up our

bibliography on the question. OK?

In 1854 an acquaintance of Solomon's widow sent a letter to the New York

Independent in which he said: "The following account of the origin of the

Book of Mormon was given to the writer of this article by the widow of the

writer of the said book. She was a native of Pomfret, Conn., of respectable

family and connections, and her statement is entitled to full credit... For his

own amusement, and the exercise of his mind and imagination, he commenced

writing, in the solemn style, his ideas of the migration of mankind, from the time

of their dispersion after the deluge, through the regions of the East to this

Western continent..."

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscNYCa.htm#082454

Now perhaps that newspaper's correspondent was telling lies -- or perhaps

he really did converse with Spalding's widow, and she was telling lies, about

her husband having written a pseudo-history "in the solemn style." Whatever

we might decide about those various possibilities, one thing is for certain,

the Oberlin Roman story contains sentences, paragraphs, and entire chapters

full of lame spoof, insipid humor and dull parody, which are anything but an

example of "the solemn style" found in ancient writings such as 4th Esdras --

which actually does tell of migrations and dispersions of biblical peoples.

So what might this "solemn style" mentioned as Spalding's chosen writing

style have looked like to a contemporary reader?

Spalding's neighbor at Amity, the respected government official Redi_ck McKee,

gives us an example:

"I recollect, quite well, Mr. Spalding spending much time in writing on sheets of paper (torn out of an old book),

what purported to be a veritable history of the nations or tribes who inhabited Canaan when, or before, that

country was invaded by the Israelites, under Joshua. He described, with great particularity, their numbers,

customs, modes of life; their wars, stratagems, victories, and defeats &c. His style was flowing and grammatical,

though gaunt and abrupt -- very like the stories of the 'Maccabees' and other apocryphal books, in the old bibles."

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA/penn1860.htm#042169

If the reader will take a moment to compare Maccabees with 4th Esdras, the

"solemn style" referred to becomes more apparent -- it is a serious, sparse

sort of chronicling narrative, familiar to readers of certain biblical records.

According to Dan Vogel's thesis, Redi_k McKee was so infected with the false

statements published in E. D. Howe's 1834 book, that McKee was forced to

fabricate stuff about Joshua and Canaan, in order to turn his recollections

of Spalding's Roman story into a memory of an entirely different sort.

So -- If Mr. McKee has been infected by the 1833-34 manipulations of the evil

D. P. Hurlbut, yet another eye-witness must be removed from our bibliography.

Let's move on to another Amity neighbor of the Spalding family: Joseph Miller:

"I was always forcibly struck with the similarity of the portions of it [the BoM] which purported to be of supernatural

origin to the quaint style and peculiar language that had made so deep an impression on my mind when hearing the

manuscript read by Mr. S. For instance, the very frequent repetition of the phrase, 'and it came to pass.'"

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA/penn1860.htm#020579

Miller is not the only early witness who recalled a Spalding story written in a

"quaint style and peculiar language," which included biblical phrases such as

"and it came to pass." So, because Miller testifies to having seen such stuff

from Spalding's pen, we can again invoke the Dan Vogel hypothesis, and say

that Miller has merely stolen his purported memories out of Howe's book.

Let's move on to yet another candidate for inclusion in our bibliography --

Abner Jackson was the son of Solomon Spalding's old friend from New York,

and Jackson claimed to know something about Spalding's story:

"Spalding frequently read his manuscript to the neighbors and amused them as he progressed with his work. He wrote it

in Bible style, 'And it came to pass' occurred so often that some called him 'old come to pass.'"

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA/penn1860.htm#010781

But, like Mr. Miller, this eyewitness may have also had access to Howe's book;

so we must disregard any reference to "come to pass" or to "Bible style."

I could go on, and cite half a dozen more examples of testimony, showing

that Solomon Spalding once wrote a story in quaint and peculiar language,

echoing the solemn style of the biblical apocrypha --- but what good would

it do? All of these witnesses MUST HAVE ONLY SEEN THE ROMAN STORY,

and subsequently had their memories corrupted by the long reach of

D. P. Hurlbut, over the decades -- over hundreds and hundreds of miles.

We could only consult these later examples of eyewitness testimony

objectively, if E. D. Howe had never published his book full of Hurlbut's lies.

And, our final conclusion must be, that the only story Spalding ever wrote

was his Roman tale, and the only old English he ever used was the occasional

"thee" and "thou" in that farce.

Case closed. [/sarcasm]

UD

.

[wenglund]

Is the standard apologetic answer to this that all of those false recollections were prompted by Hurlbut?

I am not sure why you are asking Dale since he isn't an apologist, but speaking as an apologist, myself, the answers that I am familiar with (including my own) can't reasonably be shoe-horned into that overly simplistic stereotype. If you are interested in my response, you can read it HERE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Glenn101]

I could go on, and cite half a dozen more examples of testimony, showing

that Solomon Spalding once wrote a story in quaint and peculiar language,

echoing the solemn style of the biblical apocrypha --- but what good would

it do? All of these witnesses MUST HAVE ONLY SEEN THE ROMAN STORY,

and subsequently had their memories corrupted by the long reach of

D. P. Hurlbut, over the decades -- over hundreds and hundreds of miles.

We could only consult these later examples of eyewitness testimony

objectively, if E. D. Howe had never published his book full of Hurlbut's lies.

And, our final conclusion must be, that the only story Spalding ever wrote

was his Roman tale, and the only old English he ever used was the occasional

"thee" and "thou" in that farce.

Case closed. [/sarcasm]

UD

.

Dale, you have to admit that sarcasm or not, all of the Nephi, Lehi, archaic style, stuff was coincident with Hurlbut and the non Hurlbut witnesses who claimed such came after E.D. Howe's book.

All of the Hurlbut witnesses who gave it a name cited "Manuscript Found" as the title of the romance written by Solomon. When Hurlbut went to see Matilda Davison he showed those affidavits and I think, a letter of introduction, to her and her daughter, Matilda (later to be Matilda McKinstry). Matilda Davison had "carefully preserved" the manuscript returned to her by one of the Pattersons and Solomon's other writings in the trunk which had been left in Hartwick.

This manuscript was the one that Matilda McKinstry said that she had looked over several times after her father's death. She said that she was about eleven years old at the time, old enough to be able to read and understand the words. She said that the manuscript had a title written on the outside, "Manuscript Found". She also claimed that she heard her father reading from the manuscript when she was six years old, which would put that time around 1811, and remembered the words Maroni, Lamenites, Mormon, etc. When glancing through the manuscript in the trunk, over and over, she saw the words that she remembered hearing in Conneaut. This was the manuscript entrusted into Hurlbut's care.

Of course, the manuscript's title, as we now, know, is "Manuscript Story".

This poses a problem for the Conneaut witnesses or for McKinstry. In their original affidavits, they only intimated that there was one manuscript, one story. That story was about the how the original inhabitants came to the from Jerusalem, by land and sea, led by Lehi and Nephi, breaking off into two tribes, subsequent bloody wars, and burying their dead in great heaps, which was the origination of the mounds found in the Conneaut, Ohio region.

Almost with one accord they said that when they read the Book of Mormon, the historical parts seemed to be identical to parts of Spaulding's story. Not a second or first, but story period. None of them mentioned anything about this until faced with the unpleasant truth that what they actually had did not correspond with their affidavits. Only then does the story about Solomon supposedly planning to go back and rewrite the story from scratch come about.

The Erastus Rudd information, as reported by Daniel Tyler. Daniel Tyler would have been about six years old when he and Erastus came into contact. It is not clear just exactly when Daniel came about his knowledge about Spaulding's writings. Conspicuous in its absence was any mention of the names Nephi, Lehi, etc. This is also probably the best evidence, although second hand, for a second manuscript, because it is independent of the Hurlbut reports and mentions the ten lost tribes migrating to Ohio via the Bering Straits. However, the time period is the same period of the Conneaut witnesses' interaction with Spaulding's writings and they just as possibly were talking about the same manuscript, with very different memories. Rudd probably would have been even more knowledgeable than he Conneaut witnesses if it is true that most of the writing was done in the Rudd home.

To postulate a credible second manuscript story, credible witnesses are required. Most scholars are dismissive of the Hurlbut witnesses, even non-LDS. Chris Smith is one such contemporary, do not believe then credible. Several scholars have pointed out problems with their statements, and Hurlbut is in the center of those problems.

The closest contemporary story is not the same.

However, for the Spalding theory to have any traction, the Conneaut witnesses have to be proven reliable. Since they all say pretty much that the historical sections are almost completely identical to portions of the purported writings of Solomon Spaulding, someone needs to rip out all of the religious parts of the Book of Mormon and submit the historical parts to a Spaulding wordprint analysis. One that we can all agree on (fat chance). Once the NSC stuff settles out, it might do the job.

I understand the angst of all of the Spalding theory believers. Absent a preponderance of evidence, others are not going to subscribe to this theory. A second manuscript that somehow escaped Matilda Davison's ken, that she did not "carefully preserve" is desperately needed to bring the Spalding theory off the fringe. Absent that, science is the last best hope.

Glenn

Who knows what we will find.

[Uncle Dale]

Dale, you have to admit that sarcasm or not, all of the Nephi, Lehi, archaic style, stuff was coincident with Hurlbut and the non Hurlbut witnesses who claimed such came after E.D. Howe's book.

All of the Hurlbut witnesses who gave it a name cited "Manuscript Found" as the title of the romance written by Solomon. When Hurlbut went to see Matilda Davison he showed those affidavits and I think, a letter of introduction, to her and her daughter, Matilda (later to be Matilda McKinstry). Matilda Davison had "carefully preserved" the manuscript returned to her by one of the Pattersons and Solomon's other writings in the trunk which had been left in Hartwick.

This manuscript was the one that Matilda McKinstry said that she had looked over several times after her father's death. She said that she was about eleven years old at the time, old enough to be able to read and understand the words. She said that the manuscript had a title written on the outside, "Manuscript Found". She also claimed that she heard her father reading from the manuscript when she was six years old, which would put that time around 1811, and remembered the words Maroni, Lamenites, Mormon, etc. When glancing through the manuscript in the trunk, over and over, she saw the words that she remembered hearing in Conneaut. This was the manuscript entrusted into Hurlbut's care.

Of course, the manuscript's title, as we now, know, is "Manuscript Story".

This poses a problem for the Conneaut witnesses or for McKinstry. In their original affidavits, they only intimated that there was one manuscript, one story. That story was about the how the original inhabitants came to the from Jerusalem, by land and sea, led by Lehi and Nephi, breaking off into two tribes, subsequent bloody wars, and burying their dead in great heaps, which was the origination of the mounds found in the Conneaut, Ohio region.

Almost with one accord they said that when they read the Book of Mormon, the historical parts seemed to be identical to parts of Spaulding's story. Not a second or first, but story period. None of them mentioned anything about this until faced with the unpleasant truth that what they actually had did not correspond with their affidavits. Only then does the story about Solomon supposedly planning to go back and rewrite the story from scratch come about.

The Erastus Rudd information, as reported by Daniel Tyler. Daniel Tyler would have been about six years old when he and Erastus came into contact. It is not clear just exactly when Daniel came about his knowledge about Spaulding's writings. Conspicuous in its absence was any mention of the names Nephi, Lehi, etc. This is also probably the best evidence, although second hand, for a second manuscript, because it is independent of the Hurlbut reports and mentions the ten lost tribes migrating to Ohio via the Bering Straits. However, the time period is the same period of the Conneaut witnesses' interaction with Spaulding's writings and they just as possibly were talking about the same manuscript, with very different memories. Rudd probably would have been even more knowledgeable than he Conneaut witnesses if it is true that most of the writing was done in the Rudd home.

To postulate a credible second manuscript story, credible witnesses are required. Most scholars are dismissive of the Hurlbut witnesses, even non-LDS. Chris Smith is one such contemporary, do not believe then credible. Several scholars have pointed out problems with their statements, and Hurlbut is in the center of those problems.

The closest contemporary story is not the same.

However, for the Spalding theory to have any traction, the Conneaut witnesses have to be proven reliable. Since they all say pretty much that the historical sections are almost completely identical to portions of the purported writings of Solomon Spaulding, someone needs to rip out all of the religious parts of the Book of Mormon and submit the historical parts to a Spaulding wordprint analysis. One that we can all agree on (fat chance). Once the NSC stuff settles out, it might do the job.

I understand the angst of all of the Spalding theory believers. Absent a preponderance of evidence, others are not going to subscribe to this theory. A second manuscript that somehow escaped Matilda Davison's ken, that she did not "carefully preserve" is desperately needed to bring the Spalding theory off the fringe. Absent that, science is the last best hope.

Glenn

Who knows what we will find.

Actually, I agree with a good deal of what you have to say.

If we ever know a great deal more about Spalding, Rigdon, Hurlbut, the Conneaut people,

etc., then those facts may turn out as surprises which do not quite fit any of our

current rationalizations and explanations.

If I'm really searching for Truth, and not just justifying some particular

theory, then I'd better be ready to accept even the excavation of Zarahemla.

But, for today, I'm happy just to see that nobody has shot down the possibility

of Spalding having actually written something in KJV English.

And, I'm happy to see that Wade's lack of criticism indicates that even

he now understands why I put Roper's name in the sub-title, and why I've

kept returning to evidence for two manuscripts.

I guess I'll just have to suffer the consequences, if that second manuscript

turns out to be nothing other than a discarded first draft of the Roman story;

(a version with a few more thees and thous, and maybe a mention of Israelites).

This thread seems to have died.

R.I.P., dear little discussion.

Your Uncle Dale