Post reference:
linkGlenn,
but I can show you a Book of Mormon that is not about the lost tribes.
I did a search of the Book of Mormon and “lost tribes” was mentioned 3 times, of that twice in one sentence. On page 500 and on page 2098. So what else in the Book of Mormon would indicate that Lehi and family were not descended from the lost tribes? In other words what was it about the story that makes it obvious the characters could not have any association the mythical storyline of the lost tribes?
I am not concerned about "exactly the same thing" except for the fact that several of the witnesses used the same exact phrases. But only the Hurbut witnesses.
What is it about exact phrases that bothers you? Obviously the Conneaut witnesses were aware that their statements would be read by others. When looking at their statements I notice similarities in their descriptions of what Spalding’s book was about. John Spalding said “first settlers of America”, Martha Spalding said “founded upon the first settlers of America” Oliver Smith said “founded upon the first settlers of this country”, Oliver Smith said “account of the inhabitants once in this country, Aron Wright said “first settlers of America, John Miller said “it purported to be a history of the settlement of America, before discovered by Columbus” Artemis Cunningham said “of the first settlers of this country… account of the first inhabitants of America”. Are you suggesting that they are lying? That they are simply copying the first person who suggested it was about first settlers to America? And if Hurlbut was putting words in their mouths why was he putting “lost Tribes” into their heads?
As far as the other witnesses and your concerns of “why didn't Josiah Spalding, Matilda Spalding Davison (the widow), Matilda McKinstry (the daughter), Redick McKee, and Joseph Miller have those same recollections?” could you be more explicit. I’ve addressed Josiah Spaulding and that he was in contact with his brother before he began the second manuscript Manuscript Found. I don’t see anything in the other witnesses statements that conflict with the Conneaut witnesses and indicate faulty memory or lying.
Redick McKee:.
He doesn’t say he has read or looked at the Book of Mormon, so it would be understandable that many of the details such as names he would not recall with no retrieval cue as the Conneaut witnesses had. So that answers your question why he didn’t say he recalled names. Generally people can remember information long term that they can visualize and or relate to themselves and their knowledge. So when we look at what Redick remembers of the story he doesn’t offer many details. I believe he takes it back a little bit further in time than what the Conneaut witnesses say it began at. He says it began with tribes inhabiting Canaan, before that country was invaded by the Israelites. So perhaps Spalding wrote more after leaving Conneaut and took the story back further in time than what the Conneaut witnesses were exposed to. And there is the possibility since he’s the only one who’s mentioned this detail that his memory is faulty on this particular item, he's got the general idea but it's a little before the lost tribe time. He does say “I recollect quite well Mr. Spalding spending much time in writing on sheets of paper torn out of an old book, what purported to be a veritable history of the nations or tribes,…. He described with great particularity, their numbers, customs, modes of life, their wars, strategy and, victories, and defeats, etc.” And he also says “I read, or heard him read, many wonderful and amusing passages in different parts of his professed historical records;”
So if we look at what he remembers its for the most part pretty general, virtually no details, but he gives a general description. And the purpose of his tatement is to support Mr. Miller’s statement, which he had recently read and relay what information he could remember. He notes that he doesn’t remember the detail which Mr. Miller remembered of the Amelekites making a cross with red paint on their foreheads. But he points out that despite not remembering that the manuscript had “equally ludicrous descriptions”.
Redick McKee statement is consistent with memory studies which point out that details typically are forgotten long-term though they can be recalled with appropriate retrieval cues, general information is remembered much longer and especially when it can be visualized and/or associated with the rememberers knowledge.
Joseph Miller:
Wrote in his statement he was given the Book of Mormon and his son was reading it to him and he recollected several passages that he had heard Spalding read. One being “the Amelikites had marked themselves with the red on their foreheads to distinguish them from the Nephites. The thought of being marked on the forehead with red was so strange, it fixed itself in my memory.” When an individual visualizes information it becomes more deeply encoded, and with a retrieval cue it is reasonable why Joseph Miller recalled a passage which for him was visual and memorable.
As far as Spalding’s wife and daughter, what is it they said that contradicts the Conneaut witnesses or that you have a problem with?
It is understandable Glenn that the Conneaut witnesses were shown by Hurlbut previous statements given as an aid to encourage and as well as make it easier for the witnesses to prepare their own statements. That doesn’t mean that when they say they "well recollect" that they are mistaken on that.
This is incorrect in at least two areas. One is that Josiah's statement says that he went to Ohio and stayed with Solomon for a while after the war broke out and their financial calamities began. That would have been the war of 1812
I see nowhere in his statement that he says he stayed with Solomon after the war broke out.
And a noteworthy point is that his description is that of Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek and leaves off where the Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek which resurfaced in 1880 leaves off. But he notes that Spalding’s wife informed him that Solomon had continued his history of the civilized nation and the progress of war until the triumph of the savages to the destruction of the civilized government.
The story is already incoherent enough. Joseph Miller, another Amity witness said not a thing about it. McKee says nothing about the Americas. He changed his story in a later statement also. But who cares if the witnesses are consistent?
Re: Canaan..I discussed this above however, Joesph Miller wrote his statement before R. McKee so there is no reason for him to comment on something that McKee stated. J. Miller doesn’t say in his statement as the Conneaut witnesses did what the general story was about. Instead in his statements he points only a particular details that he notes from the Book of Mormon was in Spalding's book and that he notices there were others, though he doesn't explain which ones. So his statement does not contradict McKee.
As far as McKee saying nothing about the Americas I think you’re nitpicking it’s just an oversight that he likely figured was basic to the storyline. Had Mckee gone into lots of details and then failed to mention that you'd have a point.
Oh yes I am suggesting Hurlbut. Because only the witnesses that Hurlbut contacted came up with those names. That is the point that you do not seem to understand. If the other witnesses had come up with the same type of names and phrases as the ones Hurlbut contacted, there would be less suspicion of witness leading. None of the other witnesses, in their initial statements, talked about Lehi, Nephi, Lamanites, Nephites, "by land and sea" etc. The witnesses contacted by Hurlbut show a uniformity and coherence that hte other witnesses do not
All those witnesses that Hurlbut took statements from said they read or reviewed the Book of Mormon., so as I’ve pointed out before with the retrieval cue of the Book of Mormon it is understandable why some would recollect names that had been used often in Spalding’s book. Joseph Miller’s son read to him passages from the Book of Mormon and he recognized some as Spalding’s and one in particular, he does mention Amelikites. He also may have been aware of Howe’s book and the Conneaut witnesses’ statements and appreciated … that giving details they had already given would not add any value.
Hurlbert likely asked witnesses questions to encourage them and he likely showed them previous statements to also encourage and make it easier for the witnesses. I pointed out previously that if lost tribes is not in the Book of Mormon that would be evidence that Hurlbut was not trying to put words false ideas in the minds or get them to lie. And the fact that he submitted Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek which worked against his plan to expose the Book of Mormon as a conspiracy indicates he wasn’t so devious as to destroy that evidence against his plans.
That is one of the reasons that most historians, pro and con LDS, have dismissed them. Not out of hand, but after analyzing them and the statements made by other witnesses.
The statements are not inconsistent with one another. If they were you’d have a point.
Isn't that exactly what a gist item is? Something that people remember well because it is well encoded? The point is, that none of the witness gave that detail, although the building of the ship is a prominent historical feature. But maybe it wasn't in Solomon's book. Maybe Book of Mormon did have in it "the writings of Solomon Spalding, from beginning to end, but mixed up with scripture and other religious matter, which I did not meet with in the "Manuscript Found." This would more logically explain why there were so few details.
People remember general features easier and generally longer than details. So for example when an entire book is summarized in a few sentences to give the essence of it that’s what I consider a gist memory. The witnesses summarized Spalding’s book in a few sentences in their words. It’s not a matter of it being well encoded it’s a matter of it’s just easier to remember general features as opposed to details. After 20 years recalling details would be difficult and only after being cued well would they likely remember details.
marge, I pointed out inconsistencies that were either inaccurate recollections or lies. It does not matter which one as to the accuracy of their statements.
I don’t find anything that you pointed out so far to come even close to being justifiable reasons to dismiss any of the Spalding witnesses statements. First there were the attacks on their memories and in essence those doing the attacking have little appreciation of how memory works and what the memory studies do say. You’ve tried to attack their statements based on inconsistencies but you’ve not shown how any of the witnesses statements contradict one another. And as far as “lost Tribes” you've not explained how absent those few sentences containing the words “lost Tribes” in the Book of Mormon why the characters could not be fairly recent descendents of the mythical “lost Tribes.” So what is left ...is to accuse them of lying. Yet none of them went out of their way to give statements they were the ones who were approached. They had nothing to gain, they were not anti-Mormon, and if anything giving statements was a hassle and inconvenience to their lives. These witnesses were honest, intelligent, respected citizens of the community.