Spalding: The Dead Horse that Won't Die

[Uncle Dale]

This is what is known as non sequitur. There is no evidence that Sidney ever saw that manuscript anywhere. The evidence that he was ever at the printing office is nebulous.

Depends upon what you mean by "the printing office."

We have two Pittsburgh recollections of Rigdon's

selling sheepskin book-bindings to the printer

Silas Engles, c. 1823-25, but of course this was

after Patterson's original publishing firm had

evolved into Patterson & Lambdin, and perhaps after

Engles had terminated his earlier printing service

for the Pattersons. Rigdon's earlier association

with Silas Engles is only documented in Engles'

reported knowledge of a relationship existing between

Rigdon and J.H. Lambdin (then an employee of the

Pattersons) c. 1812-1816.

The idea that he purloined that manuscript and somehow extracted the book of Mormon out of its contents, then returned it is rather far fetched. He would have had to have the document in his hands before 1816, when Spalding died, have done his work, and slipped it back before the printer returned it to Spalding. This was long before Joseph Smith came on the scene.

There is testimony on record of just such events. Whether

or not that testimony should be relied upon is the question.

...

But the problem is, there were other witnesses who were around when Spalding was writing

that story. The Oberlin manuscript was the one that Spalding was writing in Ohio. He

was still working on it well into 1811 and maybe 1812. If he started another manuscript,

went back to write it in the "old Biblical style", it would have to have been in late 1812,

and more probably after he moved to Pennsylvania. Even more probably, there never was a

second manuscript.

According to Leffingwell, he proof-read and corrected Spalding's biblical

language manuscript at Conneaut -- this would have been before the end

of 1812. According to the publisher, Robert Patterson, just such a

biblical language manuscript was submitted to him; but he does not supply

the date. It could have been in 1812, or in 1813, or even as later as 1814.

When Apostle John E. Page went to interview Patterson in 1842, he discovered

nothing useful to the Mormon cause, except that Rigdon's association with the

"office" came in the years after Spalding's widow left Pittsburgh. This probably

means after Patterson and Lambdin dissolved their partnership, and each of the

former partners acted as a book and stationery sales agent for their creditors.

This time-frame would have matched Rigdon's 1822-25 period in Pittsburgh. The

association would have thus been with the Lambdin portion of the "office,"

and not with Patterson directly.

Apostle Page also determined that Spalding's widow had submitted the manuscript

a second time, to the same Mr. Patterson, after her husband died, but before

she left for New York (probably early 1817). Patterson retained this second

submission for a period of time, but evidently received no funds for publication,

and thus returned it to the widow. If Apostle Page could have established that

this was the same story about "Indians" described by E. D. Howe in 1834, I assume

that Page would have exposed that fact. His correspondence from Pennsylvania,

back to The Twelve and the First Presidency in Nauvoo is in the LDS Archives,

but its access is restricted to approved LDS researchers and the direct

descendants of Apostle Page. Thus, we do not have Page's account of the interview

available for study at the present time.

UD

[Glenn101]

There is testimony on record of just such events. Whether

or not that testimony should be relied upon is the question.

That is the whole story in a nutshell.

Glenn

[4truth]

Glenn wrote:

That is the whole story in a nutshell.

Perhaps, but the Official nutshell is equally delicate, if not more so.

[Uncle Dale]

Glenn wrote:

Perhaps, but the Official nutshell is equally delicate, if not more so.

That was particularly the case in the many decades of

Reorganized LDS denial of Smith's polygamy. That shell

was very delicate -- with the whole world saying that we

were wrong in defending Smith as a monogmist.

And yet, in hundreds of conversations, discussions,

arguments (and fights!), I saw the RLDS defenders use

every trick in the book to deny the true history.

Every shred of evidence brought forth against Smith

was dismissed with an official rolling of the eyes

and a wave of the hand.

"Impossible!" I once heard an Apostle say in public!

"Why, if what you are charging was correct, then the

entire foundation of Christ's one true church is false!"

Write up a list of 1000 pieces of evidence of Smith's

polygamy, and the RLDS apologists and polemicists had

1001 reasons why none of that evidence, testimony,

historical facts, and rational thinking could be true.

Roger --- I'm so used to that sort of saintly dismissal

that I expect it at every turn. Smith WAS a polygamist;

the founders of the Reorganization knew that fact; and

yet generation upon generation of RLDS were told lies

about that controversy -----> and generation upon

generation of RLDS grew up bearing their so-called

God-given testimonies, that the Church was true, and

that Joseph Smith III was a true prophet.

All totaled, living, dead and former members who

eventually left -- something close to one million RLDS

have at one time or another claimed a testimony that

the Church was "true," and therefore polygamy was

invented in Utah by Brigham Young.

A million people cannot be wrong -- a million people

cannot have been so deceived -- a million people must

be bearing honest, sincere, godly testimonies; and their

arguments against their critics must be righteous ones.

Unless ----- unless those testimonies and those arguments

are themselves faulty.

Like I just said, I've seen this every day of my life.

Saintly arguments against outside critics no longer have

much effect upon me. I've heard too many that were wrong.

UD

.

[Glenn101]

Glenn wrote:

That is the whole story in a nutshell.

Perhaps, but the Official nutshell is equally delicate, if not more so.

However, we are not talking about the Official nutshell, the Ethan Smith nutshell, or Squirrel's nutshell. They are irrelevant to this discussion. Your belief that the official version has problems does nothing to help the Spalding story.

The Conneaut witnesses are problematic for several reasons. One is that several of them averred that they had read some parts of the Book of Mormon, yet none of them had made a connection with Spalding's manuscript until Hurlbut showed up to help them. The second manuscript story only came out after Hurlbut had obtained the one now at Oberlin College and it was devoid of all of those Lamanites, Nephites, Moroni, words. Egg on the face is embarrassing.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...

none of them had made a connection with Spalding's manuscript until

Hurlbut showed up to help them.

...

Even Matt Roper now agrees that their claims began

in 1832, when Orson Hyde and Samuel H. Smith preached

at Conneaut. My ancestral relative, Father Tyler,

was the first Saint to leave the Church, over these

same Solomon Spalding auithorship claims, before Howe's

book was ever published. He heard about the Spalding

claims from his own neighbors, the Rudds, Jacksons

and Henry Lake, at about the same time Hurlbut first

heard those same claims from the same Jackson family.

You are repeating the OLD party line of the LDS Church.

You need to get in synch with Matt Roper on your chronology.

UD

.

[Glenn101]

Even Matt Roper now agrees that their claims began

in 1832, when Orson Hyde and Samuel H. Smith preached

at Conneaut. My ancestral relative, Father Tyler,

was the first Saint to leave the Church, over these

same Solomon Spalding auithorship claims, before Howe's

book was ever published. He heard about the Spalding

claims from his own neighbors, the Rudds, Jacksons

and Henry Lake, at about the same time Hurlbut first

heard those same claims from the same Jackson family.

You are repeating the OLD party line of the LDS Church.

You need to get in synch with Matt Roper on your chronology.

UD

.

Which ancestral Tyler are you speaking of? Andrews Tyler. Excommunicated in 1833 and reinstated in 1834?

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

Which ancestral Tyler are you speaking of? Andrews Tyler.

Excommunicated in 1833 and reinstated in 1834?

Glenn

Yes Andrews, father of the more well known Daniel Tyler.

Andrews wife was the sister of my g-g-g grandmother. They

all joined the Church between 1832 and 1833.

Andrews hosted Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon at his cabin

while they were on their way east, and eventually to Canada.

The overnight stay there is mentioned in Smith's journal.

While Smith and Rigdon were staying there, Andrews confronted

them over the Book of Mormon authorship controversy, which was

then raging in NW Pennsylvania, adjacent to Conneaut. Smith and

Rigdon, in turn, questioned him, the Rudds and the Jacksons

about the recent activities of D. P. Hurlbut in that area. At

the time Hurlbut was two days ahead of them on the road to

Buffalo. Cowdery was sent on ahead to shadow Hurlbut, while

Smith and Rigdon briefly went up into Canada.

Andrews was unimpressed with the answers given by Smith and

Rigdon. He was a near neighbor to Henry Lake, one of the

Conneaut witnesses. He was also a near neighbor to the Rudds

and the Jackson girl, who married into the Rudd family. The

Rudds and Jacksons obtained their farms from Spalding and knew

him well, even before he came out to Ohio.

Andrews Tyler was already disaffected from Smith and Rigdon

before Hurlbut ever left on his trip to the east -- but for

the sake of his family and neighbors, he remained in the

Church until he could confront the two men. He left the Mormons

that very day, but was not formally dropped from the rolls

until Orson Pratt came through the village a few weeks later

and reorganized the Erie branch.

Andrews accepted all of the "Restoration" except for the Nephite

origin of the Book of Mormon. Not long before his death, in his

last illness, he was carried to the Chagrin River and re-baptized.

At that time he still did not accept the Nephite origin of the book,

but did accept the need to return to Apostolic Christianity on a

more stringent basis than the Campbellites offered.

In a way he has been my role model -- even though he has been an

embarrassment to my Mormon relatives. My Winegar relatives

(Great Grandmother, etc.) preserved his story and told it to me.

From that chronology I know that Mormons like Erastus Rudd, the

Jackson girl (can't recall her name) and others in the Erie and

and Elk Creek branches (like Ben Winchester and Jeddy Grant) were

aware of the Spalding authorship claims at least as early as the

spring of 1833, and likely as early as 1832, when they first originated

in adjacent Conneaut.

Hurlbut did not invent those claims. They were in circulation when

he served his mission in Erie Co., Pennsylvania. He accepted them

himself while doing missionary work in adjacent Crawford County. In

one of his preaching services, John Spalding, brother of Solomon,

attended -- stood up and condemned Hurlbut. A hazy recollection of

this event was later provided by Spalding's widow, who had been in

correspondence with John.

Read Benjamin Winchester -- and you'll see why Matt Roper accepts

the 1832 origin of those authorship claims.

UD

.

[why me]

While Smith and Rigdon were staying there, Andrews confronted

them over the Book of Mormon authorship controversy, which was

then raging in NW Pennsylvania, adjacent to Conneaut. Smith and

Rigdon, in turn, questioned him, the Rudds and the Jacksons

about the recent activities of D. P. Hurlbut in that area. At

the time Hurlbut was two days ahead of them on the road to

Buffalo. Cowdery was sent on ahead to shadow Hurlbut, while

Smith and Rigdon briefly went up into Canada.

Andrews was unimpressed with the answers given by Smith and

Rigdon. UD

I don't know what answers could Smith and Rigdon give to your ancestor that would have kept him satisfied. It seems that he believed the book was a fraud and wanted some answers either to confirm or unconfirm his idea. But what could Smith and Rigdon say? No, we didn't write the book...an angel of the lord appeared...Sidney was tracted out......blah blah blah....

What more could be said?

And it seems that your other relatives were unimpressed with Andrews.

[why me]

From that chronology I know that Mormons like Erastus Rudd, the

Jackson girl (can't recall her name) and others in the Erie and

and Elk Creek branches (like Ben Winchester and Jeddy Grant) were

aware of the Spalding authorship claims at least as early as the

spring of 1833, and likely as early as 1832, when they first originated

in adjacent Conneaut.

Hurlbut did not invent those claims. They were in circulation when

he served his mission in Erie Co., Pennsylvania. He accepted them

himself while doing missionary work in adjacent Crawford County. In

one of his preaching services, John Spalding, brother of Solomon,

attended -- stood up and condemned Hurlbut. A hazy recollection of

this event was later provided by Spalding's widow, who had been in

correspondence with John.

Read Benjamin Winchester -- and you'll see why Matt Roper accepts

the 1832 origin of those authorship claims.

UD

Yes, that is all well and good. I have always believed that Joseph and Sidney were plagued by these claims their entire lives so much so, that sidney had to make a final statement on his deathbed to his family. Poor guy. No peace even when he was close to dying. I must say that I need to feel sorry for the guy...if he didn't write the book, it must have been frustrating and mind-numbing to be plagued by it. I would of went crazy and of course, sidney did. And I am sure that Joseph had to answer these questions too and what about Emma? She heard about it too but it seems that it made no impact on her...she believed her husband to be a prophet and she was around him for most of the time. There was not even an inkling of suspicion on her part even during the years 1841 to 1843 with Joseph's Nauvoo polygamy was in full swing.

[4truth]

Glenn wrote:

However, we are not talking about the Official nutshell, the Ethan Smith nutshell, or Squirrel's nutshell. They are irrelevant to this discussion. Your belief that the official version has problems does nothing to help the Spalding story.

I realize you (& Ben) may not want to talk about it; I realize you would rather keep the spotlight away from it, but as I have already explained, I do not consider these theories in a vacuum. They each attempt to explain the same thing: where did the BOM come from? So, yes, while I am discussing, considering and evaluating "the Spalding story" I am also discussing, considering and evaluating the alternatives. Try as you might, you can't get away from that.

The Conneaut witnesses are problematic for several reasons. One is that several of them averred that they had read some parts of the Book of Mormon, yet none of them had made a connection with Spalding's manuscript until Hurlbut showed up to help them. The second manuscript story only came out after Hurlbut had obtained the one now at Oberlin College and it was devoid of all of those Lamanites, Nephites, Moroni, words. Egg on the face is embarrassing.

Again, battling strawman facts is no doubt easier, but it does not help us get to the truth of the matter. The idea that "yet none of them had made a connection with Spalding's manuscript until Hurlbut showed up to help them" is simply wrong. The recognition of a correlation struck before Hurlbut even had a Mormon testimony. And your assertion that "The second manuscript story only came out after Hurlbut had obtained the one now at Oberlin College" is nothing more than (bad) conjecture on your part. At least two of the witnesses mentioned that Spalding had written many manuscripts MONTHS BEFORE Hurlbut had recovered anything from Matilda's trunk.

Oops... where did that egg go....?

All the best.

[LifeOnaPlate]

This is still one of the most promising parallels we've seen so far in terms of Spaulding and the BoM:

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2010/03/spaulding-manuscript-and-book-of-mormon.html

[Glenn101]

I realize you (& Ben) may not want to talk about it; I realize you would rather keep the spotlight away from it, but as I have already explained, I do not consider these theories in a vacuum. They each attempt to explain the same thing: where did the BOM come from? So, yes, while I am discussing, considering and evaluating "the Spalding story" I am also discussing, considering and evaluating the alternatives. Try as you might, you can't get away from that.

Each theory has to rise or fall on its own merits, vacuum or not. The Rigdon/Spalding theory is your pet, the one we are discussing.

Again, battling strawman facts is no doubt easier, but it does not help us get to the truth of the matter. The idea that "yet none of them had made a connection with Spalding's manuscript until Hurlbut showed up to help them" is simply wrong. The recognition of a correlation struck before Hurlbut even had a Mormon testimony. And your assertion that "The second manuscript story only came out after Hurlbut had obtained the one now at Oberlin College" is nothing more than (bad) conjecture on your part. At least two of the witnesses mentioned that Spalding had written many manuscripts MONTHS BEFORE Hurlbut had recovered anything from Matilda's trunk.

Oops... where did that egg go....?

All the best.

A strawman argument is a weak or sham argument set up by a debater so as to be easily refuted by the debater. I am setting up nothing, only drawing conclusions from the evidence or lack of evidence presented.

To take your last point first, it is hardly disputed that Spalding penned several different documents. His daughter, Matilda, said that he wrote a story called the "Frogs of Wyndham" for her. It would help if you would identify your witnesses so that corroboration checks can be performed. I have not been able to find references to any witnesses that mentioned anything about Spalding writing a second romance manuscript before it was found that the one Hurlbut recovered had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. I would be happy to check out any sources you may cite. I have read repeatedly that Nehemiah King reported a connection in 1832 when listening to the missionaries preach from it, but I cannot find any direct quotes from him. There is no record of him confronting the missionaries about this also. Everything is second or third hand. Can you point me to a primary document?

You also might want to check out this article by Matt Roper.

Now as for the Conneaut witnesses Oliver Smith is the one most fatal to the second manuscript story. Spalding lodged with Oliver for six months when he first moved to the Conneaut area in 1809. Oliver stated in the affidavit attributed to him that Spalding spent most of his leisure hours working on a manuscript, Oliver averred that he had read or heard read one hundred pages or more of the manuscript and that Nephi and Lehi were two of the main characters but that there was no religious matter was included.

This would have to be the same manuscript that the other witnesses were describing also. None of them mention any other manuscript during that period of time. They all pretty much describe the same document and they all throw in some of the Book of Mormon names. I hope that you can see the disconnect there.

Glenn

[Jeanne]

After reading the first 23 pages on this topic, I am relatively convinced of one thing only. Joseph Smith could come down in Conference tomorrow and tell all the leadership.

congregation and saints at home this: "I am sorry, people. I lied. It was a hoax that became bigger that I thought. I lied about everything and with help and confidences

the B of M became a way for me to get what I wanted..blah..blah ..blah....

Now from what I have read from certain people here, I can readily "assume" that YOUR take on this would be..."that wasn't Joseph Smith, that was Satan himself! And little

five year olds next fast and testimony meeting would get up and say "I know the church is true, I know Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God." I don't think there is any way

that TBMs can see pass the possibilities and they have already decided..that IT IS TRUE! According to the tenants of the gospel, they cannot afford to be open in their

thinking and quite frankly have probably forgotten how. This baffles me because this contradicts free agency completely. IMO>

No..I am not a scholar, but God gave me a brain. With knowledge and common sense, I am able to come to my own conclusions about many things. Guess what?? I

can still get that same burning in bosom about things that I believe are true to me.

Hugs everyone. This is just my take on what I have read. Have a wonderful weekend!!

Jeanne:rolleyes:

[Uncle Dale]

...

I don't think there is any way that TBMs can see pass the possibilities

and they have already decided

...

Of course -- that is what a God-given testimony is all about.

To allow for any different possibilities is to disobey God Almighty.

I come from a slightly different "flavor" of The Restoration --

a church in which the members' testimonies need not include

the assertion "...and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the

Book of Mormon is true!" -- Because of that difference, the Saints

I associate with are allowed to hold differing opinions on Nephites,

the urim and thummim, the story of the three witnesses, etc.

When "knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt" is left out of a Latter Day Saint

testimony -- and professions regarding the Book of Mormon are left out,

then the member's mind is freed up to the extent that he/she may indeed

"see pass the possibilities..."

But, I'm told that in the Mormon Church such things are not allowed.

And so, of course, it's 13,000,000 members "just happen" to

hold 13,000,000 identical views regarding the book's origin.

As I understand it, -- they have to.

And if they do not do so, they are not faithful LDS.

UD

.

[Glenn101]

Of course -- that is what a God-given testimony is all about.

To allow for any different possibilities is to disobey God Almighty.

I come from a slightly different "flavor" of The Restoration --

a church in which the members' testimonies need not include

the assertion "...and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the

Book of Mormon is true!" -- Because of that difference, the Saints

I associate with are allowed to hold differing opinions on Nephites,

the urim and thummim, the story of the three witnesses, etc.

When "knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt" is left out of a Latter Day Saint

testimony -- and professions regarding the Book of Mormon are left out,

then the member's mind is freed up to the extent that he/she may indeed

"see pass the possibilities..."

But, I'm told that in the Mormon Church such things are not allowed.

And so, of course, it's 13,000,000 members "just happen" to

hold 13,000,000 identical views regarding the book's origin.

As I understand it, -- they have to.

And if they do not do so, they are not faithful LDS.

UD

.

Jeanne, I am sure that any substantive replies to the OP of this thread will be answered respectfully. I can find nothing in your post that I can respond to.

Dale, Is this good debating tactics? Are those substantive answers to the points in this thread?

Glenn

[Benjamin McGuire]

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly these discussions devolve in dissecting rather meaningless trivia.

Roger writes:

I addressed #1 and conceded it's the weakest part of the theory.

While you may have addressed it, you certainly have done nothing to plug the hole that it creates in any case that involves the assumption of its existence. I think this is a very serious problem for Spalding theorists. There is zero evidence for this manuscript - and, the so-called "Manuscript Found" conceptually fits the description of the extant so-called "Roman Story". There is no need to suppose another text. We can talk all we want to about the other things, but, your assertions that the extant manuscript isn't as complete as we would like it to mean simply suggest that it could be an earlier draft, or that in the end, it wasn't as complete as the descriptions you favor suggest. This being the case, it isn't at all necessary to suppose that a completely different text exists.

and this is why it is necessary not to consider these theories in a vacuum

It isn't necessary at all. This is rather a flaw in the way that you tackle the problem - as I have repeatedly pointed out. If the orthodox version of the production of the Book of Mormon is not true, it does not make the Spalding theory - as you relate it - any more or less likely. The fact that you want to rely on this kind of argument suggests that you are aware of the lack of real evidence for the Spalding theory - and are trying to find ways to shore it up. Your problems with the official version don't magically help the chances of the Spalding theory - but I do understand why you want to appeal to this kind of argument.

There is indeed testimony from more than one witness (who's claims have to be considered because he or she was at the right place at the right time) that he or she saw the two together. That you choose to reject such testimony is not the problem of the S/R theory. And both Smith and Rigdon claim other things that have proven demonstrably false.

As far as I know, these claims all occur at least 50 years after the fact. They appear to have either been solicited (at least one Spalding theorist was offering cash for witness statements) or to have other significant chronological problems so as to cause concerns with the testimony. Given these facts, these testimonies are not what you make them out to be.

Dale responded well to this when he asked: Why do you assume "conspiracy?" We assume secrecy... which, by the way, you do too.

Right, but conspiracies have motives and other things going on. You use this magic blanket of conspiracy to cover up all these other problems - but it doesn't work well. The conspiracy works just fine without a Spalding text. The conspiracy has to include a coherent reason for actually using it - particularly since it doesn't seem at all necessary. The primary areas of supposed influence are not the religious sections but the parts on warfare. And yet, warfare was a particularly prevalent subject in early 19th century literature (coming on the tails of the revolutionary war as it does).

I don't know what the point is to number 4. You do recognize (right?) that when I asserted that your demand for the same text reprinted word for word was absurd I wasn't kidding? Yet you seem to still want to press that issue. Of course "The Book of Mormon does not look or read like the existing Spalding manuscript" from a cursory, on the surface, reading. If it did we wouldn't even be having this discussion because the correlation would be obvious. Nor does it have to. You yourself want to highlight the differences and say those differences have meaning.... but the similarities don't! I am beginning to suspect you of Differences-o-mania.

The problem here remains - the same kind of parallels you suggest I have been able to duplicate in other kinds of texts. And every time I do, you simply ratchet up the requirements. Take my list of fifteen parallels in sequential order. You then want to move beyond that - when not even Holley produces something of quality. On some level, your demands become silly because your own parallels don't begin to come close to meeting the kinds of requirements that you expect me to suddenly find. But, when I manage to point out that the parallels you raise are not all that impressive when we actually look at them in context, you tend to just brush it off. And then we have that point that you yourself made about not having actually read the Spalding text - that raises some eyebrows. Your entire perspective on the parallels is coming from material you have read - that you simply accept uncritically it seems to me.

So what? Are you saying they lied?

Absolutely. I think its quite reasonable to assume that this is the case - going strictly by their testimony of course.

A good example of caricature (strawman) battling. S/R asserts--and Jockers demonstrates--that the substantial portions were written by Spalding and Rigdon and the King James Bible, with additional help from Cowdery, Smith and Pratt.

No, they don't demonstrate it. Their methodology fails to do this. This may be the conclusion that they draw from their study, but, it doesn't actually demonstrate that this is the case. In fact, if we did the exact same process that Jockers uses and proposed as authors of the Book of Mormon instead being George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John Adams, and Theodore Roosevelt, the results would also indicate just as strongly that a combination of these four men were responsible for writing the Book of Mormon (to a lesser or greater degree). So, let me repeat a simple question. If Bruce publishes a paper in the same journal, using the same peer review process, will you be willing to concede that the Jockers study does not provide the kind of evidence you assert that it does?

Part of my issue here is that you incorporate a lot of other people's arguments - but in general, I don't see that you actually look at the research or study how they come to their conclusions. It causes problems for discussion since you simply (as you do here) make an assertion - and you repeat the assertion - without ever once trying to deal with the concerns that I raise (and have raised). When I say something, you ignore it and just come back to your point. It isn't moving the discussion along, it just seems to be another avoidance tactic.

There are several viable possibilities, but one of them would be that being an avid reader, student of history and religion, Sidney Rigdon read everything he could get his hands on. Spalding's novel caught his attention and captured his interest. Like Smith (and not coincidentally) Spalding claims that he has found an ancient manuscript and proceeds to translate it. I think Rigdon believed Spalding's tale, concluding that the result was an accurate account of the ancient inhabitants of this continent and that the unpublished whole was divinely placed into his care for him--Rigdon--to add further revelational truths. The need for Spalding then, is divine purpose (in the mind of Sidney Rigdon).

Have you actually read Spalding's tale? This is a serious question. I have, more than once. I can't possibly believe this scenario that you are creating. Apart from which, the major details of the sort that you want Rigdon to believe in Spalding are areas where the Book of Mormon is simply in major disagreement. Once again, this comes back to the problem of you asserting this non-existing text - that Rigdon believed in. It had to be so different from the existing Spalding text for this to make any kind of sense, that then comparing the Book of Mormon to the existing text would seem to be completely pointless. Of what value is comparing to the Book of Mormon to the existing text when the existing text has to be so different from the theoretical one? (And on top of this, you haven't really actually read the Spalding manuscript. Out of curiosity, have you even read the Book of Mormon?)

Official Version ...why the need for the Book of Mormon?

I don't care. As I have told you more than once, for the purpose of this discussion, I will simply concede that the Book of Mormon is of modern authorship. The point you are making here is completely irrelevant. Its as if your primary objective is to make this statement:

"Believers in the Book of Mormon can't (in my opinion) come up with a good reason for the Book of Mormon. Therefore, I don't need a good reason either."

This is not an argument that makes anyone interested in accepting the Spalding Theory - believers or otherwise. It is the argument of someone who has accepted the Spalding theory regardless of the evidence (or lack thereof), and is simply pushing a point. The problem isn't the same by the way for the either theories. For Joseph Smith writing it on his own, he just has to produce it from his own imagination. For Spalding you have the problem of Joseph Smith, Rigdon, Pratt, and Cowdery all reworking a Spalding manuscript when just about any text would seem to have worked just fine (based on the evidence you are trying to provide). And so the "why Spalding" is in fact more significant than you make it out to be. It's also a question that comes up repeatedly in nearly every discussion of literary plagiarism in scholarly literature. When plagiarizing, the "why" is very important, where, it isn't really much of an issue in the case of a work of personal fiction. You see, your position drives your assumptions here. It's not an argument I will accept.

The bottom line is no one knows the real motivation. All answers are speculative.

Bingo. Another aspect with absolutely no evidence for the Spalding theory.

Ben, the exact same argument can be made against both of the competing theories with better results.

An irrelevant point. One I am not interested in discussing. The flaws of other arguments do not make you argument any more likely. That you keep turning to other arguments by comparison (and not by way of engagement) is a significant problem for this discussion.

You also do the same thing when you (both) accept the word of the witnesses when they claim Joseph put his head in his hat and every word that appears in the BOM was translated that way--oops, I mean every word except those that were obviously lifted from the King James Bible--and we all know there's quite a few of those! Your theory suffers (fatally) from this problem because your star witnesses fail to mention any reliance on a King James Bible and, instead, insist that every word came from the stone, lest any man should boast, and is further weakened when those same witnesses contradict each other in their later individual statements.

On the other hand, I am more than happy to claim that the text of the Book of Mormon is reliant on the Bible. I have actually published an article (in a Maxwell Institute journal no less) which demonstrates this to be the case. When I apply the same kinds of methods that I used to establish the connection between the Book of Mormon to the Bible to your alleged parallels between the Book of Mormon and the existing Spalding manuscript, your arguments simply fall down. They do not stand up to scrutiny. There is a huge gap between evidence for claims that the Book of Mormon is reliant on the Bible (the King James Version no less) and the evidence for claims that the Book of Mormon relies on a non-existing Spalding manuscript. At least for the King James Bible we actually have a text we can use for comparison ...

You speculate (but can't prove) that Hurlbut wrote statements for the Conneaut witnesses, effectively putting words in their mouths, but we know Joseph Smith (or someone) actually did this (no speculation required) since your star witnesses sign ONE pre-worded statement(!) and then later they each proceed to contradict various elements of it(!) as Vogel aptly points out in American Apocrypha.

There is a lot of literature on this. And no pretense was made. But the problem with the Conneaut witness statements is that if we use the same kind of criteria to connect them as you seem to use to connect the Book of Mormon and the Spalding manuscript then there is the completely obvious conclusion that they are dependent texts. There is this double standard in your use of parallels. You have to include it in one case and exclude it in the other. But then again, you are trying to cop out of having to make a reasonable explanation by suggesting that because someone else makes an argument that is bad, you can make it too. So you simply stack up bad arguments? You think this is how you make a convincing argument for the Spalding theory?

So if you want to talk about witness credibility, I am more than happy to have that debate.

Good. Let's do that. Pick your first couple of witnesses, provide their comments, and lets get to work on them.

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

The manuscript he read almost surely contained something similar to this:

I am curious how you make this assertion.

First, you are asserting that Spalding manuscript number 1 is like Spalding manuscript number 2. This is despite having to assert that almost none of the text might be similar, since the contradictions between the Book of Mormon and the Spalding manuscript 2 must be significant given your list of witnesses who discuss the similarities between the Book of Mormon and Spalding manuscript 2.

What is interesting about this particular passage is the fact that you have previously repeated the assertion that there are similarities here - not to the Book of Mormon, but to Jospeh's discovery narrative written in 1838. My, that must have really influenced Rigdon (or perhaps Rigdon hung on to the manuscript and it must have really influenced Joseph Smith) - despite the similarities and differences in his earlier recountings of some of those events. It becomes a rather tangled web.

In all actuality, there is absolutely no reason to assert that the mythical (and I mean that in every sense) Spalding manuscript was at all like the existing so called Roman Story. This is merely a wild speculation needed to try and make your point - which is why there should be any relevance at all in comparing the Spalding Manuscript to the Book of Mormon when it obviously doesn't match the descriptions of the witness statements.

Remember, according to Ben if that account reminds you of anything you've heard before it's merely coincidence.

Exactly. And not just Ben, as I have quoted a number of authors and experts in comparative literature and plagiarism who agree with me on this issue. Let's not forget that we should read those two chapters in the Book of Mormon and the two chapters in the English translation of Verne's Around the World in 80 Days and assume that Verne must have plagiarized the Book of Mormon. Yeah .... just like that.

Ben M.

[Glenn101]

Exactly. And not just Ben, as I have quoted a number of authors and experts in comparative literature and plagiarism who agree with me on this issue. Let's not forget that we should read those two chapters in the Book of Mormon and the two chapters in the English translation of Verne's Around the World in 80 Days and assume that Verne must have plagiarized the Book of Mormon. Yeah .... just like that.

Ben M.

Ben, I am afraid that we are indeed speaking to one who is beating a dead horse. The horse does not refuse to die, but those beating it refuse to deal with the evidence that it is dead. The excuse that they believe that all of the other horses are dead also has no relevance to the fact that this particular horse is dead and all of the beating it is getting will not resurrect it.

Glenn

[Gervin]

Ben, I am afraid that we are indeed speaking to one who is beating a dead horse. The horse does not refuse to die, but those beating it refuse to deal with the evidence that it is dead. The excuse that they believe that all of the other horses are dead also has no relevance to the fact that this particular horse is dead and all of the beating it is getting will not resurrect it.

Glenn

That's odd. One thread over I believe you were talking about a paper written by a LDS member on this very "dead" subject. He's having it peer-reviewed. Why would someone invest time and energy on a dead subject?

Question: would the scientific confirmation of Spalding's voice in the Book of Mormon make the statements of the witnesses more, or less, reliable?

[noel00]

"If Bruce publishes a paper in the same journal, using the same peer review process, will you be willing to concede that the Jockers study does not provide the kind of evidence you assert that it does? "

Question - Will Bruce S include a visual of Joseph Smith looking at a stone in a hat in his paper?

[Glenn101]

That's odd. One thread over I believe you were talking about a paper written by a LDS member on this very "dead" subject. He's having it peer-reviewed. Why would someone invest time and energy on a dead subject?

Question: would the scientific confirmation of Spalding's voice in the Book of Mormon make the statements of the witnesses more, or less, reliable?

I was speaking specifically concerning the starter of the thread. He has not engaged most of the points that Ben has made, especially about parallels. He did concede one point, but then went on to ignore it in subsequent posts.

If the scientific evidence were to confirm the "Spalding voice" in the Book of Mormon", it would not change the reliability of the witnesses. Their reliability can be determined to some extent by carefully analyzing what they said against the time frame and what has actually been discovered.

Glenn

[Benjamin McGuire]

Noel writes:

Question - Will Bruce S include a visual of Joseph Smith looking at a stone in a hat in his paper?

It's not even relevant Noel. This is merely a redirect to avoid answering the question. So why don't I ask you the same question. If Bruce has a paper published in the same journal as the Jockers study, which goes through the same peer review process, and contradicts the findings of the earlier Jockers study, will you abandon the earlier study as having been disproved?

Ben M.

[noel00]

Noel writes:It's not even relevant Noel. This is merely a redirect to avoid answering the question. So why don't I ask you the same question. If Bruce has a paper published in the same journal as the Jockers study, which goes through the same peer review process, and contradicts the findings of the earlier Jockers study, will you abandon the earlier study as having been disproved?

Ben M.

I am sure Jockers and others may respond. The impression I get from emails from Jockers is that this issue is something he got into through a request for assistance from Craig Criddle. Because of his other research interests he probably does have the time or interest to spend his time on such an issue. The debate seems to be over the use of the use of machine learning algorithms for authorship attribution vs using PCA ("which is not really a good choice for this sort of problem... With PCA one only sees the results of a subset of the features (i.e. the 1st and 2nd PC) whereas the high-demensional classification algorithms consider all of the features"." Witten and Jockers co-authored, a comparative study of five machine learning algorithms for authorship attribution. the key take away is that while NSC performed marginally better than the other four, all five did a pretty darn good job."

[Benjamin McGuire]

I am sure Jockers and others may respond. The impression I get from emails from Jockers is that this issue is something he got into through a request for assistance from Craig Criddle. Because of his other research interests he probably does have the time or interest to spend his time on such an issue. The debate seems to be over the use of the use of machine learning algorithms for authorship attribution vs using PCA ("which is not really a good choice for this sort of problem... With PCA one only sees the results of a subset of the features (i.e. the 1st and 2nd PC) whereas the high-demensional classification algorithms consider all of the features"." Witten and Jockers co-authored, a comparative study of five machine learning algorithms for authorship attribution. the key take away is that while NSC performed marginally better than the other four, all five did a pretty darn good job."

None of this still answers the question Noel. Most of it is completely irrelevant to the question that I asked. It's a simple question. Perhaps you would be willing to answer it? PCA plots are merely a way of displaying data - and wouldn't have any relevance to the issue of proving Jockers' study to be fatally flawed. So, if Bruce were to publish a paper in the same journal, following the same peer review process that disproved Spalding authorship of the Book of Mormon, would you accept this as an effective rebuttal to the argument that the Jockers study is evidence of a Spalding authorship component in the Book of Mormon?

Ben M.