More Book of Mormon Studies

[4truth]

UD:

Okay, here's Bush's error-laden conclusion:

On the back side of page 135 of the 171 page manuscript was a portion of an unfinished letterfrom Spalding to his parents referring to correspondence dated January 1812 -- almost certainly penned prior to the narrative text on the other side of the same sheet. (The reverse order would make no sense; and in all other cases the Spalding story appears on both sides of the manuscript pages.) Spalding thus was still at work on his Roman story well after several of Hurlbut's witnesses claimed to have read or heard read Manuscript Found. Moreover, it appears that Spalding penned an additional 36 pages of text after January 1812, the probable year of his move to Pittsburg.

So he's wrong about the page number (did Bush need bifocals? page 132 can look like 135 if your vision is blurry) and wrong about the letter being penned by Spalding and probably gets 1812 wrong... but beyond all that, I just don't follow his logic.

an unfinished letter from Spalding to his parents referring to correspondence dated January 1812 -- almost certainly penned prior to the narrative text on the other side of the same sheet. (The reverse order would make no sense

I conclude the exact opposite... it makes no sense to think the letter was "almost certainly penned prior to the narrative text on the other side".... ?

Correct me if I am wrong, but we have text all the way to page 131. Then we flip page 131 over and there is page 132 with the letter. 133 and 134 are missing, but the narrative picks up seemingly without interruption at page 135. I don't see how Bush can claim the letter was almost certainly penned before the narrative on the other side? Seems exactly backwards to me. Spalding writes up to page 131 and stops... who knows when and who knows for how long, but blank page 132 is setting there face up, with page 131 underneath when someone comes along and writes a letter. They don't bother to check if there's anything on the other side until they have written what we find there, and as you point out the paper is thick and not very transparent. Then at some point they notice the writing on the other side, so they put the page back in the stack and get pages 133-134 to write their letter. At some point down the road, Spalding continues the story, starting with the next available page... 135.

Isn't that the most likely explanation?

How does Bush conclude otherwise?

Ironically--if I'm right about that--Bush and I agree that the remaining text was written after the letter was penned which would have had to have been after 1813.

[Glenn101]

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

letter, in which he says:

>Hurlbut is now at my store I have

>examined the writings which he has obtained

>from sd Spaldings widowe I recognise them to

>be the writings hand writing of sd Spalding but not

>the manuscript I had refferance to in my statement

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

>first place he wrote for his own amusement and

>then altered his plan and commenced writing a

>history of the first Settlement of America the

>particulars you will find in my testimony Dated

>Sept 1833 August 1833

>

>

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

I am finding a strong disconnect between this statement and the statements of the Conneaut witnesses. From their aggregate testimony, the "Manuscript Found" would have to be the first manuscript that Spalding was working on and not the "Roman Story" manuscript. I briefly entertained the idea that if Solomon Spalding of Conneaut fame had indeed written an earlier version of "Romance of Celes" that could have been the one that the the Conneaut witnesses saw and thus the insistence that the Oberlin manuscript was not the one they remember. However, after reading parts of the "Romance of Celes" I am convinced that there is no connection. One of those contentions by the witnesses is incorrect, or both. And as you may expect, I tend to believe that both are incorrect.

The Roman story only briefly alludes to the first

settlement of America. It's main story takes place

long after the light-skinned mound-builders and the

dark-skinned Indians had arrived there.

A story about the first settlement of America better

matches the reported testimony of Erastus Rudd, who

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

fictional history of Israelites written by Spalding,

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

to prevent Rudd from joining the Mormon Church in 1832.

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

UD

.

The information provided by Daniel Tyler is problematic to me. Although he is a friendly source, his information comes years after the exposure to the stories and is second or third hand. (Spalding, Rudd, Daniel) Daniel mentions the Ten Lost tribes which are not explicitly noted in the Oberlin manuscript, and the Bering Straits, which also is not noted explicitly in the Oberlin manuscript. (The ten lost tribes are not a theme dealt with at all in the Book of Mormon nor are the Bering straits.) Abner Jackson in 1880 also mentioned the Bering Straits. The Bering Straits ideas are something more likely gleaned from Morse's Geography.

To me, the most salient point concerning Erastus Rudd it the one you made. Although supposedly with a lot of exposure to the Spalding manuscript, he did not see enough areas of similarity to convince him that the Book of Mormon was based upon Spalding's manuscript. Is it rational to conclude that he would have joined the church in 1830 had he seen Nephi, Moroni, Lehi, etc. in Spalding's manuscript and then seen and heard those same names from the Book of Mormon?

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...

Erastus Rudd...Is it rational to conclude that he would have joined the

church in 1830 had he seen Nephi, Moroni, Lehi, etc. in Spalding's manuscript

and then seen and heard those same names from the Book of Mormon?

...

Perhaps what he read was a Spalding story about Israelites traveling

over the Bering Straits to America -- but not a story so similar to

the Book of Mormon so as to cause him any worries.

The Book of Mormon has no such crossing of those straits by Israelites,

and so what Rudd recalled seeing as a youngester, back in 1811-12

would not have been what he saw in the Book of Mormon in 1832-33.

Perhaps Ethan Smith really did loan Solomon Spalding a Lost Tribes

story, which Spalding never returned, but instead re-wrote as if

it were his own creation. Perhaps that story had characters named

Levi and Naphtali (among other Lost Tribes names).

A story featuring Levi and Naphtali, leading Lost Tribes across the

Bering Straits, might bhave been more easily confused with the

Book of Mormon than the so-called Oberlin manuscript.

A story featuring Levi and Naphtali, leading Lost Tribes across the

Bering Straits, might have been recalled as having been composed in

the style of the Bible by Robert Patterson, in Pittsburgh.

A story featuring Levi and Naphtali, leading Lost Tribes across the

Bering Straits, might have been proofread by William Leffingwell,

and recalled as sounding "biblical."

A story featuring Levi and Naphtali, leading Lost Tribes across the

Bering Straits, might have contained the phase "and it came to pass"

now and then.

etc. etc. etc.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

Isn't that the most likely explanation?

Even that doesn't quite work.

Spalding composed the Roman story in a series of little

booklets which had been formed from folded sheets of

paper and sewn together with thread at their seams.

The loss of the outer "cover" of one of these booklets

best explains the missing four pages of narrative in

the Roman tale. We can more or less guess what those

two missing parts of the story entailed, but we do not

know where the lost folio "cover" went to.

Mrs Spalding was recalled as having taken pages from her

husband's writings to use as wrapping paper, by a visiting

guest. She obviously placed no value upon her husband's

scribblings. She may have torn off the missing four pages

(a single folded sheet) at some point before or after he died.

The fact that there was a retained page with a draft letter

and some mathematical scribblings, just prior to the missing

sheet, may have simply been a coincidence.

The draft letter was begun on the full sheet of paper before

it was ever folded to form a folio -- or so I might guess,

because its handwriting occurs at a right angle to all of

Spalding's handwriting on the folded sheets.

Although the draft letter MAY have been written just prior

to the composition of the Oberlin manuscript (or, during its

compilation) -- it is unlikely that it was entered into a

bound folio after that folio had been sewn together.

How does Bush conclude otherwise?

I think he relied upon some less-trained "helpers" in putting

his article together, and thus introduced errors or unchecked

guesses into his 1977 Dialogue submission. He never went to

Ohio (like I did) to consult the original document. He was in

a hurry, because Spalding was then current news and harmful to

the Church's image. I think he rushed his article ---

Ironically--if I'm right about that--Bush and I agree that the remaining

text was written after the letter was penned which would have had

to have been after 1813.

I think the most likely scenario is that Spalding wrote numerous stories --

but only concentrated his attention upon a couple of them, in the hopes

of polishing them up enough for possible publication. He may have even

worked upon more than one unfinished story at a time.

In Conneaut he penned a "Boska" story, based upon the legendary South American

religious leader, "Bochica, the founder of the empire."

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA/Phil1800.htm#090628

Later, in Pennsylvania, Spalding revised the "Boska" story, changing

the primary character's name to "Lobaska," in order to better match

the names of several of his descendants, whose names he also began

with the letter "L" (such as Lamesa, the stolen princess).

The draft letter, with a date of 1813, was somehow incorporated into

the physical structure of the Roman story, before the Widow Spalding

left Pennsylvania for New York (in early 1817?).

We shall probably never know the exact details.

What we can guess, is that Solomon Spalding wrote oddball fiction as

a sort of pastime, but that only one of his stories was recalled as

ever having been submitted for publication during the time that he

resided in Pennsylvania (late 1812 to mid-1816).

UD

[Glenn101]

Perhaps what he read was a Spalding story about Israelites traveling

over the Bering Straits to America -- but not a story so similar to

the Book of Mormon so as to cause him any worries.

The Book of Mormon has no such crossing of those straits by Israelites,

and so what Rudd recalled seeing as a youngester, back in 1811-12

would not have been what he saw in the Book of Mormon in 1832-33.

Perhaps Ethan Smith really did loan Solomon Spalding a Lost Tribes

story, which Spalding never returned, but instead re-wrote as if

it were his own creation. Perhaps that story had characters named

Levi and Naphtali (among other Lost Tribes names).

A story featuring Levi and Naphtali, leading Lost Tribes across the

Bering Straits, might bhave been more easily confused with the

Book of Mormon than the so-called Oberlin manuscript.

A story featuring Levi and Naphtali, leading Lost Tribes across the

Bering Straits, might have been recalled as having been composed in

the style of the Bible by Robert Patterson, in Pittsburgh.

A story featuring Levi and Naphtali, leading Lost Tribes across the

Bering Straits, might have been proofread by William Leffingwell,

and recalled as sounding "biblical."

A story featuring Levi and Naphtali, leading Lost Tribes across the

Bering Straits, might have contained the phase "and it came to pass"

now and then.

etc. etc. etc.

UD

However, with all of that would it not pretty much follow that the manuscript that Erastus Rudd saw would be the same one that the Hurlbut witnesses saw?

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

However, with all of that would it not pretty much follow that the manuscript that Erastus Rudd saw would be the same one that the Hurlbut witnesses saw?

Glenn

It is impossible to answer such questions without first of all knowing

how many different manuscript stories Spalding wrote, and which of

those stories he re-wrote.

Some people say that the only thing he ever wrote in his entire

lifetime is now on file at Oberlin College.

Others say that he also wrote a story called "Frogs of Wyndham."

Others say that he wrote numerous fictional stories.

One of those three explanations must be wrong.

--- But which one?

UD

[Glenn101]

It is impossible to answer such questions without first of all knowing

how many different manuscript stories Spalding wrote, and which of

those stories he re-wrote.

Some people say that the only thing he ever wrote in his entire

lifetime is now on file at Oberlin College.

Others say that he also wrote a story called "Frogs of Wyndham."

Others say that he wrote numerous fictional stories.

One of those three explanations must be wrong.

--- But which one?

UD

I would not feel as if I were going out on a limb in saying that Solomon wrote the manuscript now residing at Oberlin College. As for the Frogs of Wyndham, that one is debatable. You probably know about the Battle of the Frogs in Windham Connecticut in 1758 and the subsequent ribbing the town took in both song and story. It is very possible that Solomon wrote a story based upon the legends for his daughter. Spalding seems not to have read that to his adult neighbors, although it was something to be found humorous by adults.

However, if we are to take the Conneaut witnesses seriously, it is necessary to ascertain just how good their memories actually were and how well they jibe with the few facts that we can be fairly certain of.

Ben McGuire has shown some problematic areas where the wording of the affidavits have raised suspicions about someone putting words in their mouths.

The Oliver Smith affidavit notes that Solomon resided with him for something like six months when Spalding first moved to the area, apparently in late 1809. It was at his home that Oliver averred Spalding spent much of his leisure time writing his story with Lehi and Nephi being the lead characters.

Then Aron Wright, after ostensibly being shown the manuscript that Hurbut had obtained from the trunk, said that wasn't the one he had seen.

Quoting your quote:

"Hurlbut is now at my store I have examined the writings which he has obtained from sd Spaldings widowe I recognise them to be the writings hand writing of sd Spalding but not the manuscript I had refferance to in my statement before alluded to as he informed me he wrote in the first place he wrote for his own amusement and then altered his plan and commenced writing a history of the first Settlement of America the particulars you will find in my testimony Dated Sept 1833 August 1833"

According to Wright, Spalding had already commenced his rewrite in late 1809 or 1810 when Solomon was staying with him. This was supposedly the same manuscript that he other witnesses had heard read from and maybe even read themselves. This would seem to be the same manuscript that Spalding was supposedly working on at Erastus Rudd's home. As you pointed out, Rudd was seemed not to be bothered by any resemblance.

The evidence for a second manuscript is awfully thin but the evidence for confused and led witnesses is very strong.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...

the evidence for confused and led witnesses is very strong.

...

Who do you feel "led" William Leffingwell and Robert Patterson, to

offer their remarks regarding a Spalding story in biblical language?

Apostle John E. Page certainly had either read Howe's book, or, by 1842,

knew about it -- for its allegations were being featured in the local

Pittsburgh newspaper, while Page was residing at Pittsburgh.

Given such a good opportunity, I would have expected Page to have

come away from his interview with Patterson, carrying some refutation

of Spalding ever having written anything in biblical English.

And yet, after interviewing Patterson, subsequent to Patterson's first

statement, the only useful information Page could obtain for his purposes,

was that Sidney Rigdon was not attached to the Patterson "office" until

after the tenure of Solomon Spalding in the area (after Spalding's death).

If somebody "led" Patterson, then Apostle Page should have exposed that fact.

If the testimony of the Conneaut witnesses was entirely wrong, then Orson Hyde

should have exposed that fact when he investigated the Spalding claims in

the Conneaut Creek area in 1834.

If Spalding's widow had lied about the biblical sounding story, then P.P. Pratt

should have exposed that lie, when he sent Elder Jesse Haven to interview the

widow at her home in 1839. But no questions/answers about this important topic

were published in the LDS summary of that haven interview.

At the very least, some Mormon effort should have been made to show those

witnesses as liars, while they yet lived. The Mormon leaders (like Pratt)

did indeed publish refutations of the Spalding claims while several of

those witnesses were still living -- but no LDS effort was made to

contradict the testimony of those living witnesses, until after all of

them had died. This strikes me as damning to Partt's, Page's & Hyde's efforts.

UD

.

[Glenn101]

Who do you feel "led" William Leffingwell and Robert Patterson, to

offer their remarks regarding a Spalding story in biblical language?

Apostle John E. Page certainly had either read Howe's book, or, by 1842,

knew about it -- for its allegations were being featured in the local

Pittsburgh newspaper, while Page was residing at Pittsburgh.

Given such a good opportunity, I would have expected Page to have

come away from his interview with Patterson, carrying some refutation

of Spalding ever having written anything in biblical English.

And yet, after interviewing Patterson, subsequent to Patterson's first

statement, the only useful information Page could obtain for his purposes,

was that Sidney Rigdon was not attached to the Patterson "office" until

after the tenure of Solomon Spalding in the area (after Spalding's death).

If somebody "led" Patterson, then Apostle Page should have exposed that fact.

If the testimony of the Conneaut witnesses was entirely wrong, then Orson Hyde

should have exposed that fact when he investigated the Spalding claims in

the Conneaut Creek area in 1834.

If Spalding's widow had lied about the biblical sounding story, then P.P. Pratt

should have exposed that lie, when he sent Elder Jesse Haven to interview the

widow at her home in 1839. But no questions/answers about this important topic

were published in the LDS summary of that haven interview.

At the very least, some Mormon effort should have been made to show those

witnesses as liars, while they yet lived. The Mormon leaders (like Pratt)

did indeed publish refutations of the Spalding claims while several of

those witnesses were still living -- but no LDS effort was made to

contradict the testimony of those living witnesses, until after all of

them had died. This strikes me as damning to Partt's, Page's & Hyde's efforts.

UD

.

Your last statement is confusing. However, it is not pertinent to our discussion of the Conneaut witnesses and an elusive second manuscript upon which their credibility hangs.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

Your last statement is confusing. However, it is not pertinent to our discussion of the Conneaut witnesses and an elusive second manuscript upon which their credibility hangs.

Glenn

If I accuse one of your family of being a bad person,

in a book, now being distributed, would you not respond?

Oliver Cowdery did respond to the Spalding claims, in

the Kirtland newspaper -- but did not take the trouble

to refute any of those witnesses. They then lived a

day's walk away, or a few hours away on the stagecoach.

Mormon missionaries were continually passing through

Conneaut and nearby towns, on their way to Buffalo and

points east. So far as I know, only Orson Hyde bothered

to refute the Conneaut witnesses. he went there, interviewed

them, and years later published his findings in England --

not in the Conneaut or Kirtland newspaper.

I'd fire my lawyer, if he blundered that badly in clearing

my good name -- or that of an accused family member.

UD

[4truth]

UD wrote:

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

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

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

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

If that amalgamation does not produce a text sufficiently lengthy

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

for a longer writing sample.

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

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

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

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

and 2010 Jockers authorship attributions for Mr. Spalding.

And that is where things will really get interesting. I would imagine there would then be a concerted effort on the LDS side to isolate "voices" within the BOM that have the least in common with any of the possible 19th century candidate authors and then run comparisons to those voices over the entire book as well.

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

criticism of methods involving writers not already known to have been

contributors to the Book of Mormon can be bypassed.

And we have Ben on record asserting that:

Now, when the NSC model is used and the real author is among the potential authors (when it is an actual closed set instead of an open set), then it is quite reliable. And the second paper I mention above supports this notion in test cases quite well (that is, it doesn't seem to throw out real authors when they are included in the potential author list).

So if Ben's observation above is accurate, the results of comparisons to BOM-derived candidate authors should prove quite interesting.

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

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

with a different set of author-candidates.

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

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

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

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

of some moderate proportion).

Interesting prediction. Won't they simply be inclined to say that at some points Smith had to study it out in his mind more than at other points? In fact, I can see a potential for an LDS version of the "theory of everything" here. A theory that unifies Skousen with Roberts. This BOM mapping will merely show where Smith studying it out in his mind took precedence over God's "iron-clad," literal, word for word translation. It may be a little tricky to explain why Smith had to study harder when the BOM is predicting his arrival in the latter days, but I'm sure our competent LDS friends will be more than up to the task.

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

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

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

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

at he the beginning of the Book of Alma.

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

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

PROBLEM WILL EMERGE FOR THE MORMONS.

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

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

And how will Glenn, Ben, Bruce and others respond if that turns out to be the case? So far I'm stumped on that one.

All the best.

[4truth]

UD wrote:

A story about the first settlement of America better

matches the reported testimony of Erastus Rudd, who

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

fictional history of Israelites written by Spalding,

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

to prevent Rudd from joining the Mormon Church in 1832.

Do we have an account by Rudd? If not, how do we know this?

[Glenn101]

Do we have an account by Rudd? If not, how do we know this?

The only thing I have been able to find is from Daniel Tyler a former neighbor of Rudd's. As far as I know there is no direct quote from Rudd himself.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...

Interesting prediction. Won't they simply be inclined to say that at some points

Smith had to study it out in his mind more than at other points?

...

I suspect that this happened in the 1832 "three-degrees-of-glory"

joint vision, shared by Rigdon and Smith, at the Johnson house in

Hiram, Ohio.

The two fellows "studied out" in their minds what they thought heaven

was like -- its purpose and structure -- after reading (and correcting)

the Bible. And then, as a confirmation, they were granted a personal

encounter with Jesus Christ (?) and a view of the "three kingdoms."

Of course in lesser instances, perhaps all they had to go on, for

Divine confirmation, were the movements of Oliver's divining rod or

the reflections from Joe's peepstone.

How did Sudney Rigdon confirm the validity of his recorded, post-Nauvoo

epiphanies and oracles? He mentioned what a great student of the biblical

prophecies he was, but never quite got around to describing how he knew

that his visions and revelations were "true."

I'd guess that Sidney relied less upon mineral rods and seerstones for

confirmation, than he did upon a simple "burning in the bosom."

At any rate, future LDS word-print analysts will have to sort out which

parts of the Book of Mormon are least like Spalding's known writing style.

That is all fine and dandy. But I am postulating that Mr. Spalding also

had a "Nephite" writing style that differed a bit from his Roman story --

we see "and now it came to pass," "but behold," "and now behold," "now"

and "behold," repeated in Alma 48-49 ad nauseum. These sorts of

additions (even if added by Spalding himself) MUST have some effect upon

the percentages of frequently used non-contextual words tabulated by

the word-print analysts.

I suspect that Bruce is two or three steps ahead of us on this score,

but will avoid sharing his findings with us until a much later date.

UD

.

[Glenn101]

I suspect that Bruce is two or three steps ahead of us on this score,

but will avoid sharing his findings with us until a much later date.

UD

.

Probably December.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

Probably December.

Glenn

If Bruce has already compared the ostensible writer of the

"Record of Helaman" to the rest of the Nephite Record, I can

only wonder HOW he could have word-printed "Helaman the son of Alma,"

from the contents of a BoM text, whose chapters plot out in widely

separated portions of Bruce's own pc1/pc2 chart?

After all, Bruce cites his conclusion -- that dot separation on

his chart also denotes separation of authorship -- in order for

him to exclude the various pca-charted 19th century writers from

any possible Book of Mormon authorship. However, some of the

"Record of Helaman" chapters plot out on that same chart as

being more widely separated from one another than some of the

19th century texts are separated from the Book of Mormon "cloud."

By several different methods I have demonstrated the very likely

integrity of Alma 48-49, and to that could be added Alma 50. A

few other "Record of Helaman" chapters could be reasonably added

to the group -----> BUT NOT ALL of them.

If Bruce has not followed my own methods, then how has he determined

which chapters to include, in order to word-print Helaman son of Alma?

UD

[4truth]

The Erastus Rudd case is certainly a curious one. It appears there were two Erastus Rudds, one born in 1795 and the son born in 1817.

My question is which one joined the church in 1832 and subsequently died in Missouri on the Zion's camp march, elder or Jr? Looks like it was the elder Rudd. But Tyler probably got his information from the Jr. Erastus Rudd, no?

In any event, here's what Tyler says:

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

This story is obviously not the Roman Story (unless Tyler's getting his facts messed up) and also bears little resemblance to the BOM.

Tyler continues:

I think Spauldin removed to Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, prior to my information of his tale on the mounds. In 1832 Elders Orson Hyde and Samuel H. Smith preached a few times in our neighborhood and baptized three persons, among them Erastus Rudd, in whose house much of the romance was formerly written, and from whom I received much of my information.

Spalding removed to Pittburgh "prior to my information of his tale..." ?? That's an odd statement. Tyler was born in 1816 so Spalding removed to Pittburgh before Tyler was even born. Maybe that's what he's saying?

And another oddity: "in whose house much of the romance was formerly written..."

Formerly? Is this just 19th century phraseology or does this imply more than one Romance?

All the best.

[Glenn101]

If Bruce has not followed my own methods, then how has he determined

which chapters to include, in order to word-print Helaman son of Alma?

UD

When Bruce's information is published, we will know whether or not what you propose is pertinent. I am not making any predictions.

Glenn

[Thexriddle]

The genealogy folks on Ancestry.com seem to have converged to the elder Rudd, b. 1787, as the one who died in 1834.

His son, Erastus Harper Rudd, b. 1817 in Pa., died in Farmington,Davis,Utah in 1863

T

[Glenn101]

The Erastus Rudd case is certainly a curious one. It appears there were two Erastus Rudds, one born in 1795 and the son born in 1817.

My question is which one joined the church in 1832 and subsequently died in Missouri on the Zion's camp march, elder or Jr? Looks like it was the elder Rudd. But Tyler probably got his information from the Jr. Erastus Rudd, no?

In any event, here's what Tyler says:

This story is obviously not the Roman Story (unless Tyler's getting his facts messed up) and also bears little resemblance to the BOM.

Tyler continues:

Spalding removed to Pittburgh "prior to my information of his tale..." ?? That's an odd statement. Tyler was born in 1816 so Spalding removed to Pittburgh before Tyler was even born. Maybe that's what he's saying?

And another oddity: "in whose house much of the romance was formerly written..."

Formerly? Is this just 19th century phraseology or does this imply more than one Romance?

All the best.

Daniel's statement is simply saying that Spalding had moved to Pittsburgh before Daniel heard anything about the romance being written. Daniel remembers hearing about it in 1824 or 1825, when he would have been eight or nine. There is no telling how much he actually remembered from Rudd's information and how much had filtered in during the intervening years, especially after "Mormonism Unvailed" had been published. This information was given in 1892, I believe, so you can make of it what you will. As to the Spalding theory, it is pretty neutral in its content.

But I came across a further statement from one of the Conneaut witnesses, thanks to Dale's massive collection of data. It was from John Spalding and he gives a lot of details of Solomon's "Manuscript Found" that was missing from his 1833 statement.

John Spalding - June 1851 Yankee Mahomet

"Solomon Spaulding was born in Ashford, Conn., A. D. 1761. He graduated at Dartmouth College, and was afterwards regularly ordained a minister. After preaching three or four years, he gave up his profession, and commenced mercantile business, in partnership with his brother Josiah, in Cherry Valley, N. Y., where he soon failed. In 1809 he removed to Conneaut, Ohio, where he engaged himself in building an iron forge; but in this business also he soon failed.

"Casting about him for some method of retrieving his losses, he conceived the design of writing a historical romance upon a subject then much mooted in the scientific world, the origin of the Indian tribes. This design he carried into exe- cution between 1809 and 1812, and the produce of his labors was a novel entitled the 'Manuscript Found.' In this work lie mentioned that the American continent was colonized by Lehi, the son of Japheth, who sailed from Chaldea soon after the great dispersion, and landed near the isthmus of Darien. Lehi's descendants, who were styled Jaredites, spread gradually to the north, bearing with them the remains of antediluvian science, and building those cities the ruins of which we see in Central America, and the fortifications which are scattered along the Cordilleras.

"Long after this, Nephi, of 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, the Nephites and the Lamanites. These nations made war constantly against each other, and in the year A. D. 420, a great battle was fought in western New-York, which terminated in the destruction of the armies of both the belligerent parties, and the annihilation of their power. One man only was left; Mo[r]oni, the son of Mormon, who hid the records of the Nephites near Conneaut, Ohio, previously at his death."

I am sure that this should set the deal in stone for everyone. After reading this, how could anyone not be certain that the Book of Mormon was indeed plagiarized from Solomon's efforts?

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...

After reading this, how could anyone not be certain that the Book of Mormon

was indeed plagiarized from Solomon's efforts?

...

Like I said, if Spalding wrote a story about the Lost Tribes

crossing into America under the leadership of Levi and Naphtali,

it might have been remembered as resembling the Book of Mormon.

A fellow like John Spalding might have even thought he was remembering

Lehi and Nephi -- and have mis-remembered other details.

In the 1850s the Mormon Church advanced this very theory. It was held

as a possibility as late as 1883, in the writings of George Reynolds.

But after 1883 the Mormons abandoned the possibility that Spalding

might have written something about Israelites. When Joseph F. Smith

wrote on the subject, at the turn of the century, the LDS party-line

conformed to "follow the prophet," and no mention of Spalding's

Lost Tribes ever subsequently appeared among Mormon apologists.

As it says in the D&C, the members shall accept the voice of the

Prophet as God's own voice -- and so Joseph F. Smith must have

been right.

UD

[Glenn101]

Like I said, if Spalding wrote a story about the Lost Tribes

crossing into America under the leadership of Levi and Naphtali,

it might have been remembered as resembling the Book of Mormon.

A fellow like John Spalding might have even thought he was remembering

Lehi and Nephi -- and have mis-remembered other details.

In the 1850s the Mormon Church advanced this very theory. It was held

as a possibility as late as 1883, in the writings of George Reynolds.

But after 1883 the Mormons abandoned the possibility that Spalding

might have written something about Israelites. When Joseph F. Smith

wrote on the subject, at the turn of the century, the LDS party-line

conformed to "follow the prophet," and no mention of Spalding's

Lost Tribes ever subsequently appeared among Mormon apologists.

As it says in the D&C, the members shall accept the voice of the

Prophet as God's own voice -- and so Joseph F. Smith must have

been right.

UD

It is Lehi the son of Japheth and the Jaredites, plus Nephi and the ten lost tribes which convinced me.

Glenn

[4truth]

Glenn wrote:

It is Lehi the son of Japheth and the Jaredites, plus Nephi and the ten lost tribes which convinced me.

Good. We're coming together. I'm nearly convinced there really were golden plates, but I'm still holding out for a visit from one of the three Nephites... although I suspect Mitt Romney might be one.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Good. We're coming together

...

As I pointed out earlier, the "Smith+helpers" explanation for

Book of Mormon origins is the only one of the three "theories"

that continues to uncover and present new supporting evidence.

The LDS may say that their supernatural ("Smith+angels+Nephites)

explanation continues to gather new evidence, but so far, at least,

very little of the Mormon claims are accepted outside of Mormondom.

Compare the LDS situation to that of Jewish scholars and professors

of religion. The non-sectarian, scientific scholars and experts are

able to accept and confirm many of the unique Jewish claims for texts

and for history, WITHOUT converting to Judaism.

On the other hand, the LDS expect investigators who are eventually

able to accept and confirm unique LDS claims to CONVERT and be LDS.

We see this dilemma presented again and again, while conversing with

even the most educated, scientific-oriented Mormons. When their unique

explanations of past history are finally presented for discussion, we

are asked to "pray about it," or to consult the Bible for examples of

similar supernatural events and outcomes.

The Mormon apologist may appear to be carrying on a rational, open-minded

discussion --- but, beneath that appearance of logical, critical thinking,

he is actually defending his testimony of Joseph Smith, Nephites, etc.

I have encountered Jewish apologists who are much, much more flexible in

their conversions with non-members. The Jewish apologist will admit that

the prophets could have been "wrong" in some of their pronouncements --

that Jewish explanations of ancient events, miracles, etc., may also be

inaccurate or imperfectly presented. Essentially, the Jewish testimony

rests upon the reality of God, the divinity of the Torah and the covenant

relationship of Israel with YHWH. That is a much different position from

which to argue historical events, than is the Mormon position.

Scholars can accept large portions of the unique Jewish claims without

having to become Jews themselves. Scholars/investigators CANNOT accept

much of the unique LDS claims without converting to Mormonism.

The non-sectarian, scientific investigator of LDS historical claims can

accept that perhaps NHM generally matches the pronunciation and

location of the Book of Mormon's Nahom. The same investigator can agree

that there are some interesting Hebraisms and historical oddities in the

Book of Mormon narrative, etc., etc.

But that is about as far as the non-Mormon can reasonably progress. He cannot

presume that there really were Nephites living in Zarahemla in the time

before Columbus. And the Mormon cannot give up that belief without losing

his testimony.

The non-Jew may say that he cannot presume there really was a Job and

the family/friends of Job living in the Land of Nod ------ and the Jew

CAN set aside that belief, as possibly inaccurate or flawed. The Jew

who gives up testifying Job and Nod to have been real does not lose his

basic testimony and is not disfellowshipped by other Jews.

The Mormon who gives up testifying Nephites and Zarahemla to have been

real, is in immediate danger of losing his testimony, his temple recommend,

his church calling, his good reputation, and perhaps even his membership.

See the difference, Roger?

UD

.

[Uncle Dale]

...

See the difference, Roger?

I've been asked, at various times, why it is that an RLDS like myself

can seriously investigate the claims of 19th century authorship for

the Book of Mormon, and not be excommunicated for my efforts. After all,

S-R advocates such as Vernal Holley, Ted Chandler, Wayne Cowdrey and

Craig Criddle were either excommunicated or shunned and forced out

of the LDS religion.

The answer is quite simple, really. Among the RLDS there are two sorts

of testimonies -- the traditional, official "party line" and the personal

witness of conversion (of being born again, remission of sin, Holy Ghost).

The old "party line" testimony of, "I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that

the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ is true, and that Joseph Smith III

was a true prophet," was long ago abandoned by the top leaders. It has not

been a membership requirement since the first part of the 20th century.

So, a Reorganized Latter Day Saint can affirm the "Restoration" and the

Gospel, without necessarily testifying that God has given him/her a

confirmation that the Book of Mormon is "true."

Because of this fundamental difference between LDS and RLDS testimonies,

I was not forced out of the church, due to my investigative activities.

Pressured -- leaned upon -- counseled -- advised -- instructed -- urged --

but never forced to recant my Spalding-Rigdon research, nor my research

into Joseph Smith's polygamy (which many RLDS continue to firmly deny).

Where I did feel great pressure exerted against my research and hypothesizing,

was when certain Community of Christ leaders attempted to push upon me the

"Smith-alone" explanation for BoM origins. They are closet Brodieites!!!

UD

.