Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_Dan Vogel]

While the general themes in Spalding’s romance were memorable, the actual contents and writing were not. Indeed, the details of its contents, exact wording, and especially names, would be difficult to remember.

It has been about 10 years since I read the extant Spalding manuscript (less time distance than the Conneaut witnesses), and with the exception of the part about finding the record in a cave, I couldn't begin to tell you the plot, and for the life of me I can't recall a single name.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have a fairly good memory, but I must confess I’m in the same canoe as you!

[_MCB]

http://books.google.com/books?id=57gUAA ... &q&f=false

It is free.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

So the discussion has moved from "memory confabulation" being the explanation of choice to account for the testimony of the S/R witnesses to " it’s not impossible for it to have happened. You will never be able to prove that it didn’t."

I suppose we can agree on that much. Of course it's also possible that the Conneaut witnesses had actually been repeatedly exposed to a Spalding ms not unlike the Book of Mormon and that they were simply telling the truth with their memories being accurate for the most part. That would be the simplest explanation.

Simplest if you can read minds, as Ben pointed out, and exclude complicating factors like the Mormon witnesses, disconfirmation provided by the only extant Spalding MS on the topic, evidence of memory confabulation with misinformation about Book of Mormon contents, etc.

Let me remind you that it’s Marg who is trying to prove false memory is impossible for the Conneaut witnesses. My position has always been that the Mormon testimony is more convincing and that false memory theory can provide a possible explanation.

Conversely, there's only one way to prove the Conneaut witnesses’ memories were tainted, find the missing MS.

We can already demonstrate that their memories were tainted. And since your argument rests on the theory of another MS, it’s up to you to find it—not me.

Not to repeat the last 40 pages, but there are good reasons to suspect the witnesses you cite in support of "no MS was used in the production of the Book of Mormon" are not reliable witnesses. And, interestingly enough, the MS that you point to contains parallels to the Book of Mormon and to Joseph Smith's discovery narrative.

Let me remind you that you lost that debate, although you won’t admit it. Parallels don’t prove plagiarism.

On this point you have a reasonable case to make--that is if you insist on viewing the Book of Mormon as a homogeneous work. The point Dale has been making for decades now, is that certain chunks of the Book of Mormon resemble something Spalding did write, while others, not so much.

Dale’s methodology is questionable and certainly not reliable enough to be used as evidence. If it were, the debate would be over, and there would be no need to use it to construct another argument.

You're making an assumption that the extant MS predates the non-extant MS and I see no reason to make that assumption.

I don’t believe it matters which came first since I don’t believe there was a second. I was merely giving a hypothetical to suggest those who speculate about a second MS not place too much hope in it. At any rate, Spalding’s historical writing was better than Joseph Smith’s, although Joseph Smith’s use of symbol and eloquence was superior to Spalding’s.

That's quite a leap. You've gone from a possibility to a probability with nothing (so far as I can tell) to back you up except your allegation that Spalding's writings don't resemble "the Book of Mormon" (which Dale and Holley dispute) and what you believe Spalding would have "discarded" assuming your chronology is correct--which it probably isn't.

I don't think the leap to probability is warranted.

I used “possibility/probability” because it depends on how you look at it. If we look at the Conneaut witnesses’ statements alone, it is only possible that they were mistaken; but if yu look at it in connection with the Mormon witnesses and other considerations I have discussed, it becomes probable that the Conneaut witnesses’ memories were contaminated.

[_Dan Vogel]

http://books.google.com/books?id=57gUAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=solomon+Spalding+manuscript&hl=en&ei=njSCTaTQPI6qsAOY5In1AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

It is free.

I use a reprint the Tanner's published years ago.

[_Dan Vogel]

Dan which eyewitnesses are you referring to who you think are reliable?

You can read about the witnesses to the translation in Lancaster's essay here:
http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/word/chapter8.htm#lancaster

[_MCB]

I certainly respect your access to sources. You have access to stuff that I could only dream of. Fortunately for people like me, Google Books levels the playing field a bit. When I started researching the subject, I kept the reference librarian where I lived quite busy. Now some of the most obscure sources are only a few clicks away. And I don't mean kilometers. :)

[_GlennThigpen]

[

No, memory confabulation is still a very real possibility. It shows in the ten tribes stories not found in the Book of Mormon and the straits of Darien statement by a witness living in an area that the idea was known to have been broached by "mormonite" missionaries.

Dale has addressed the 10 tribes and explained the connection to the Book of Mormon.. With regards to the straits of Darien that was the common name then in 1833 for what we today refer to as the Isthmus of Panama. If the Book of Mormon appears to land people between north and south america it is understandable why O. Pratt would have thought or speculated that or any other Mormon for that matter. And if Spalding intended that it's not the least bit strange that he should mention it specifically to Miller. You are reading too much into something which isn't justified to do so.

There is nothing strange about Miller saying Spalding told him he landed the people near Straits of Darien. That comment doesn't require that he must have listened to some Mormon missionary speculating it.

No one has addressed the lost tribes except to speculate with absolutely no foundation, that the lost 116 pages contained such a story. No one has explained why just about all of the witnesses (except Nahum Howard) said that the Book of Mormon, the 1830 edition which they supposedly read, was in the historical respects, almost identical to the Book of Mormon, but one cannot find the lost tribes story in the Book of Mormon. If, and that is the big "if" Spalding's alleged second manuscript contained a lost tribes story, which four of the witnesses stated explicitly that it did, that theme should be prominent in the Book of Mormon.
Now either those witnesses were confabulating memories of other discussions about the lost tribes, or they were lying. It does not make any difference on that score.
As for John Miller and the straits of Darien story, I am just pointing out the possibility of memory confabulation because none of the other Conneaut witnesses mentioned the straits of Darien and Miller was the one who was living in an area where it is known that Orson Pratt taught about the Book of Mormon, an account actually appearing in a local newspaper.

Glenn

[_marg]

While the general themes in Spalding’s romance were memorable, the actual contents and writing were not. Indeed, the details of its contents, exact wording, and especially names, would be difficult to remember.

It has been about 10 years since I read the extant Spalding manuscript (less time distance than the Conneaut witnesses), and with the exception of the part about finding the record in a cave, I couldn't begin to tell you the plot, and for the life of me I can't recall a single name.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have a fairly good memory, but I must confess I’m in the same canoe as you!

Neither of you spent time with the author discussing MF, an author who put his work in progress manuscript into context for his readers and how it related to something of common interest to them .."a historical account of ancestors of Indians in America" in which they'd have memories of when and where Spalding discussed this with them as well as hearing his voice. To them without much other entertainment available that was a very unique experience something you haven't gone through with MSCC. You also are trying to remember without any retrieval cue...they had the retrieval cue of the Book of Mormon. If you had a few manuscripts put before you, one being MSCC and another similar one but with a different time period, different names, different story you'd likely would recall MSCC and differentiate it from the other one you had not been exposed to.

The people in this discussion who are using false memory to dismiss the Conneaut witnesses do not seem to appreciate what memory entails as per scientific studies not to mention simply common sense...either that or they don't want to appreciate what memory entails. The argument of false memory appears to be used conveniently rather than basing it on good reasoning.

It should be obvious why your experiences reading MSCC is different than theirs and how that would affect your recalls of it.

And Dan you don't have much flack on this because most of the people who argue in these discussions who are Mormon are very biased and will support you not because they agree with your Smith alone secular theory, but because they are heavily motivated to dismiss the conneaut witnesses based on emotional reasons. They can accept a secular Smith alone theory but can not accept a theory involving a conspiracy of others with Smith. So we aren't really getting an objective discussion with intellectually honest people not heavily motivated to support one theory versus another. Although I discuss this theory, I have no vested personal interest, I really couldn't care less if Smith wrote the Book of Mormon alone or if it was done with others. I'm not motivated for any personal faith based reason to come to a conclusion one way or another.

So when you both say in this thread you can't remember MSCC, with the implication therefore neither could the conneaut witnesses remember MF...you both are not fairly evaluating the data, nor are either of you appreciating any sort of understanding of what memory studies do say.

[_marg]

No one has addressed the lost tribes except to speculate with absolutely no foundation, that the lost 116 pages contained such a story.

post reference: link

Dale wrote: "Then how can Mormons call it the "stick of Ephraim," if
it is not about members of at least two of the "lost tribes?"

Nobody ever said that the Book of Lehi (or any other missing
text) related the story of ALL of the members of those tribes.

So long as even a few members of the Joseph tribes
could be brought to the Land of Promise, the ancient
biblical blessings could be fulfilled. That is LDS doctrine."

post reference: link

Dale wrote: "Certainly you know that there were pre-1830 published writings
that identified the Americas as a promised land, for the fulfillment
of the biblical promises made to the Joseph tribes.

That is also LDS doctrine. I do not understand how a Mormon
who has attended even a few weeks of meetings could miss
knowing that important tenet."
>>snip

"Again -- it need not be that ALL OF THE ISRAELITE TRIBES gather
to Zion (Jackson County, in America) -- only that SOME of their
descendants do that, in order to fulfill prophecy.

The Book of Mormon is about SOME OF THEIR DESCENDANTS
taking part in the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

Thus, the Book of Mormon is deeply concerned with the fate of
the descendants of Abraham, and particularly of Joseph.

The Joseph tribes are "lost."

If Joseph Smith, Jr.'s patriarchal blessing says he is of Joseph
lineage, then the founder of the Mormon Church is himself a
member of part of the Lost Tribes of Israel.

If your patriarchal blessing says that you are of Ephraim's lineage,
then YOU are a member of part of the Lost Tribes of Israel.

If my LDS neighbor's blessing say that he (a Hawaiian) is of
Manasseh lineage, then HE is a member of the Lost Tribes.

The Book of Mormon may not tell the story of each and every
member of those Lost Tribes, but its entire reason for being
rests upon the assertion (lie?) that it is the Stick of Ephraim."

No one has explained why just about all of the witnesses (except Nahum Howard) said that the Book of Mormon, the 1830 edition which they supposedly read, was in the historical respects, almost identical to the Book of Mormon, but one cannot find the lost tribes story in the Book of Mormon.

You forget the witnesses had discussions with Spalding about what MF was about. In addition although not explicitly stated within an alledged historical account, one can appreciate that the Book of Mormon 's characters Lehi and Nephi are from the "lost tribes" ...Joseph's tribe.

If, and that is the big "if" Spalding's alleged second manuscript contained a lost tribes story, which four of the witnesses stated explicitly that it did, that theme should be prominent in the Book of Mormon.

It's the background information to the story, it need not be woven in, in fact why should it be.. Why should the characters describe themselves as being from "lost tribes". That's the bigger picture looking at it from the reader/viewer perspective but it's not something the characters within the story would concern themselves with.

Now either those witnesses were confabulating memories of other discussions about the lost tribes, or they were lying. It does not make any difference on that score.

Or they had discussions with Spalding who told them it was a story involving lost tribes of House of Israel..which Lehi and Nephi were.

As for John Miller and the straits of Darien story, I am just pointing out the possibility of memory confabulation because none of the other Conneaut witnesses mentioned the straits of Darien and Miller was the one who was living in an area where it is known that Orson Pratt taught about the Book of Mormon, an account actually appearing in a local newspaper.

let's look at what Miller says in his statement to Hurlbut

He worked for Spalding.
He boarded with spalding for several months
He mentioned Spalding wrote 2 or 3 books and a number of pamphlets..this was stated before any MSCC was found as well as other writings Hurlbut obtained in the trunk
He perused the writings often but the one which he paid the most attention to was Manuscript Found"
He said Spalding frequently read passages from Manuscript found to company present

He examined the Book of Mormon ..and noted many passages on book verbatim..names brought fresh to his recollection
Spalding informed him that the people in book landed near straits of Darien called Zarahemla in book

We also have his daughter Rachel Derby who in 1884 stated

- he (father) told her that while Spalding his wife and himself had meals together Spalding would lie on the bed and read to them his manuscripts.
-Father (Miller) also frequently read them himself
- She often heard him talk about Nephites and Zarhemlites before the Book of Mormon was published
-she well remembers Hurlbut's visit and that Hurlbut read passages to her father and would ask Hurlbut to stop reading and Miller/fatherr would then state what followed.

What you have above Glenn is a scenario of people remembering the context of where and when they heard the events they recall. Studies on memory have found that people who don't remember context, are the ones who get confused with memories and mix up one memory event for another.

What you are suggesting is highly improbable. What you are suggesting essentially is that if there is a possibility that Miller confused his memory regarding Darien where he obained that information...that he is confusing his source memory and if he confused that source memory then so too all the rest of his entire memories as stated to Hurlbut in his affidavit.

But what he describes Glenn are not memories easily confusable with other memories. He's recalling dinner meetings in which he heard Spalding read the manuscript. He's recalling reading it himself and paying particular attention to one story. And he's recalling these events happening over months, with a high degree of frequency. he heard spalding read, he discussed with spalding and he read himself. Had he seen a missionary talk and mention Darien, he likely would have remembered that as separate to Spalding. That sort of memory would have been in an entirely different context.

To discount all his statement based on your conjecture of confabulation over "Darien" is unreasonable. To you the place name Darien sticks out as signficant because it's not a name we use now a days..so you figure why would he. But it was a commonly used place name then. And it is quite reasonable to assume spalding in his discussions about his manuscript would have mentioned at some point to someone where he intended the characters from Jerusalem to land in America. It's not the least bit far-fetched with Miller's apparent keen interest in this story that he would have asked Spalding where Zarahemla was intended to be in America. As a matter of fact it would have been unusual that he wouldn't have enquired on that point, since he expressed a significant interest in the story.

[_GlennThigpen]

Marg, Dale is going on and on about what the LDS have been saying about the Book of Mormon as the Stick of Ephraim. It has absolutely nothing to do with what a discussion of the lost tribes would have been about with the people of the Conneaut community. Even now, when you do a search for the lost tribes, you get results primarily about the northern kingdom of Israel and its exile around 722 BC by Assyria. That is what Spalding was supposedly writing about. Not the "stick of Ephraim."

No one has explained why just about all of the witnesses (except Nahum Howard) said that the Book of Mormon, the 1830 edition which they supposedly read, was in the historical respects, almost identical to the Book of Mormon, but one cannot find the lost tribes story in the Book of Mormon.

You forget the witnesses had discussions with Spalding about what MF was about. In addition although not explicitly stated within an alledged historical account, one can appreciate that the Book of Mormon 's characters Lehi and Nephi are from the "lost tribes" ...Joseph's tribe.

Are you saying that when Aron Wright talked about the lost tribes he was talking about the tribe of Joseph? Are you saying that Martha Spalding is talking about the tribe of Joseph? Are you saying that John Spalding is talking about the tribe of Joseph? Are you saying that Henry Lake is talking about the tribe of Joseph? Are you saying that all of the talk about Spalding's alleged second manuscript is not about the lost tribes but the lost tribe of Joseph? Of course you know there is no tribe of Joseph. "This book represented the American Indians as the descendants of the lost tribes" was the comment by Henry Lake. What would he have meant and understood by "ten tribes story?" An account of a few souls, several of whom were from one of the lost tribes but had been decidedly unlost at Jerusalem or an account of the ten tribes exiled to Chaldea in 722 BC?

If, and that is the big "if" Spalding's alleged second manuscript contained a lost tribes story, which four of the witnesses stated explicitly that it did, that theme should be prominent in the Book of Mormon.

It's the background information to the story, it need not be woven in, in fact why should it be.. Why should the characters describe themselves as being from "lost tribes". That's the bigger picture looking at it from the reader/viewer perspective but it's not something the characters within the story would concern themselves with.

Because that was what Spalding was supposedly writing about. That is what the witnesses were saying. You are ignoring those witnesses. The lost tribes as ancestors of the American Indians was supposed to be the main theme of Spalding's story.

Now either those witnesses were confabulating memories of other discussions about the lost tribes, or they were lying. It does not make any difference on that score.

Or they had discussions with Spalding who told them it was a story involving lost tribes of House of Israel..which Lehi and Nephi were.

Again, you are ignoring what the witnesses actually said. It was not a story "involving lost tribes" (your words), it was "a history he was writing, of the lost tribes of Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America, and that the Indians were their decendants," Aaron Wright's words. You are downplaying what the witnesses actually said.
And the Book of Mormon is not about the lost tribes. It says so almost explicitly.

3 Nephi 17:4 But now I go unto the Father, and also to show myself unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not lost unto the Father, for he knoweth whither he hath taken them.

This was the resurrected Jesus talking to the Nephites.

As for John Miller and the straits of Darien story, I am just pointing out the possibility of memory confabulation because none of the other Conneaut witnesses mentioned the straits of Darien and Miller was the one who was living in an area where it is known that Orson Pratt taught about the Book of Mormon, an account actually appearing in a local newspaper.

let's look at what Miller says in his statement to Hurlbut

He worked for Spalding.
He boarded with spalding for several months
He mentioned Spalding wrote 2 or 3 books and a number of pamphlets..this was stated before any MSCC was found as well as other writings Hurlbut obtained in the trunk
He perused the writings often but the one which he paid the most attention to was Manuscript Found"
He said Spalding frequently read passages from Manuscript found to company present

He examined the Book of Mormon ..and noted many passages on book verbatim..names brought fresh to his recollection
Spalding informed him that the people in book landed near straits of Darien called Zarahemla in book


What you are suggesting is highly improbable. What you are suggesting essentially is that if there is a possibility that Miller confused his memory regarding Darien where he obained that information...that he is confusing his source memory and if he confused that source memory then so too all the rest of his entire memories as stated to Hurlbut in his affidavit.

But what he describes Glenn are not memories easily confusable with other memories. He's recalling dinner meetings in which he heard Spalding read the manuscript. He's recalling reading it himself and paying particular attention to one story. And he's recalling these events happening over months, with a high degree of frequency. he heard spalding read, he discussed with spalding and he read himself. Had he seen a missionary talk and mention Darien, he likely would have remembered that as separate to Spalding. That sort of memory would have been in an entirely different context.

What I am pointing out is very possible. Miller was the only one of the Conneaut witnesses to make that connection and was the only one of the witnesses known to have been in an area where the "mormonites" were preaching the Book of Mormon. Miller need not have even heard the preaching, but could easily have read an account in the newspapers. We are talking about twenty years after the fact of those original discussions here and not something that anyone noted having discussed in the interim.

To discount all his statement based on your conjecture of confabulation over "Darien" is unreasonable. To you the place name Darien sticks out as signficant because it's not a name we use now a days..so you figure why would he. But it was a commonly used place name then. And it is quite reasonable to assume spalding in his discussions about his manuscript would have mentioned at some point to someone where he intended the characters from Jerusalem to land in America. It's not the least bit far-fetched with Miller's apparent keen interest in this story that he would have asked Spalding where Zarahemla was intended to be in America. As a matter of fact it would have been unusual that he wouldn't have enquired on that point, since he expressed a significant interest in the story.

And, it just as easily could have been the story of the "mormonite" preachers that helped Miller to "remember" something from another source. Not even "deeply encoded" Henry Lake had those memories, but Henry was very explicit about the ten tribes though.

Glenn