I finally have a couple minutes to respond to Ben's earlier observations.....
In the first post in this thread, there is a link provided, with a series of parallels. Here they are, with the original comments, and with some of my own.
1: Date of the Finding of the Ancient Records
In both accounts the purported ancient records of the extinct civilized inhabitants of the Americas were discovered within the first two decades of the 19th century. Smith's experience was a three part effort extending over a 36 month period. Spalding's fictionalized experience has no date but it is loosely based upon some actual events during his residence in Ohio (1809-12).
Joseph Smith claims to receive the records in the third decade of the 19th century - but I think, all things considered, that such a nitpick is irrelevant. We might say that both accounts are relatively contemporary, and describe (assuming that the Spalding account is based loosely on actual events) things that occured near the time of their publication. Which means that there isn't any need or reason to see this as some kind of parallel derived from a borrowing of some sort. Rather, the dates of writing place limits on the dates of discovery. And that's pretty common to all accounts of discovery, not to these two.
With all due respect, if this were the only thing the two accounts had in common, it would indeed be nit-picky. But within the context of all the similarities and testimony, it is not nit-picky. The fact that the two accounts are relatively contemporary is relevant. The fact that Spalding's writing came first is important. The fact that both accounts deal with a modern finder of ancient records is relevant.
2: Place of the Finding of the Ancient Records
Spalding Account:"Near the west bank of the Coneaught River there are the remains of an ancient fort."
Mormon Account: "Convenient to the village of Manchester stands a hill of considerable size."
Dale: The accounts for the finding of these ancient records begin by providing the position of the discovery spots in relation to known geographic locations: the "Coneaught River" (Conneaut Creek) in Ohio and the village of Manchester in New York. As is frequently the case for the Spalding story's phraseology, the wording he uses here closely parallels a passage in the Book of Mormon:
I am reminded of the opening of Hemmingway's book, The Snows of Kilimanjaro: "Kilimanjaro is a snow-covered mountain 19,710 feet high, and it is said to be the highest mountain in Africa. Its western summit is called by the Masai, 'Ngaje Ngai,' the House of God. Close to the western summit there is the dried and frozen carcass of a leopard. No one has explained what the leopard was seeking at that altitude." Many accounts of discovery start by identifying a location. This is a rather common theme for such a story. So to find such a detail in both narratives isn't startling, but perhaps expected. It might be more odd, I would think, if such a narrative of discovery failed to disclose some details about the place where the discovery occured. Not only this, but, we would also be somewhat cautious about a narrative of discovery that didn't place the events in some location by using known landmarks. But, that's not actually what's happening below is it? After all, where is the river Sidon?
Spalding: "Near the west bank of the Coneaught River..."
Book of Mormon: "near the bank of the river... on the west of the river Sidon"
This is a more problematic issue for the claims being made here. Since the Book of Mormon text itself isn't the discovery narrative, and the river Sidon isn't a "known geographic location". But, just how unique is this phrasing? This is one of my long-standing complaints with Dale's method. He speaks elsewhere of a "Spaldingish vocabulary". And here he suggests that there is this connection based on Spalding's phraseology.
I think this is one of the weaker comparisons since Dale is drawing from the Book of Mormon and not Smith's account. Nevertheless, Dale is going on a hypothesis that links the two to a common author and then offers evidence to support the hypothesis. That is certainly reasonable. And since the wp study supports the connection, it is reasonable to consider all possible parallels. But the susequent parallels are certainly stronger.
But is this remotely unique to Spalding? Let's look at a couple near contemporary examples:
Haddonfield, p-t., of Newton t-ship, Gloucester co., near the west bank of Cooper's creek, 6 miles S.E. from Camden, 9 N.E. from Woodbury, 144 from W.C., and 36 S. from Trenton; contains 100 dwellings, a Quaker meeting and Baptist church, 2 schools, a public library, 2 fire companies ... (The history of New Jersey, from its discovery by Europeans to the adoption of the federal constitution by Thomas F. Gordon, published by D. Fenton in 1834.)
Second, Carver's Island, near the west bank of the mouth of St. George's River - which flows up to the famous lime-producing Thomaston - offers for the investigation of the antiquarian some very interesting remains. These are said to be the appearances of a very ancient settlement. (Proofs considered of the early settlement of Acadie by the Dutch: being an appendix to the Dutch in Maine by J. Watts De Peyster, published in New York in 1858, p. 6).
"near the west bank" isn't terribly common (by that, I mean I can easily identify a few dozen 19th century instances), but similar phrases like "on the west bank" and the like can be counted in the thousands in 19th century literature. And the parallel isn't exact.
Once we broaden the search to include variations something like those in the Book of Mormon, we can quickly come to the conclusion that there is nothing really Spaldingish about these phrases. It's a pretty common way to describe something which happens to be near a river. But wait, that's what the phrase means.
Once you "broaden the search" you have changed the playing field with no justification for doing so. Spalding may have had more than one way of saying "near the banks" but the point is that these two match as they stand and therefore add to the larger body of comparisons.
Dale: Both discoveries of ancient records took place within a few years of each other, in the first decades of the 19th century; also, both discoveries purportedly occurred within about 200 miles of each other, amidst the "mound-builder" hills on the southern shore of the Great Lakes. Considering the vast reaches of this planet and the millenia of recorded history, the two discoveries of ancient records happened in practically the same place (in terms of time and space). In order to better visualize this uncanny correspondence, see the figure provided below.
So, let me summarize. Both narratives
are written within a few years of each other, and describe contemporary events involving a discovery.
This then is the reason why the events described
occur within a few years of each other (this, of course, is not surprising, and shouldn't be seen as evidence of borrowing - if on the other hand, both narratives described a particular and not contemporary discovery, we might have something).
Not really. In fact your reasoning here is tautological. The fact that "Both narratives are written within a few years of each other and describe contemporary events" is NOT
the reason why "the events described
occur within a few years of each other," rather you're simply stating the same thing twice--that the accounts describe contemporary events and are written by relatively contemporary authors. If this were all there were to it then, yes, the notion of contemporary writers writing about their personal experiences is unimpressive. But that is NOT Dale's point. He says it pretty well himself:
Considering the vast reaches of this planet and the millenia of recorded history, the two discoveries of ancient records happened in practically the same place (in terms of time and space).
Dale's point is that it is truly remarkable that Spalding is writing a fictional account of the discovery of ancient writings in pre-1816 Ohio and then Smith
just happens to produce an allegedly true account of
the same type of discovery happening to him in practically the same time in history and practically the same geographical location and in roughly the same chronological sequence.
Even if Smith's story is true (and I don't think it is) it is
still a remarkable coincidence.
That is Dales's point--not that two contemparary writers chose to write about contemporary events.
And of course, both authors happened to live near each other (this coincidence, by the way, isn't questioned - merely the fact that both discoveries happened near where the authors lived - at least in their descriptions). Don't we think that its odd that these two authors, given he vast reaches of this planet and the millenia of recorded history should think to write these narratives at about the same time in the same place? Just as odd, don't you think, that they actually lived in virtually the same place at the same time?
Absolutely. That is the point. As I just stated: Even if Smith's story is true (and I don't think it is) it is still a remarkable coincidence. That is Dales's point--not that two contemparary writers chose to write about contemporary events.
So, these parallels, while certainly parallels, don't seem to have any real significance - and the one point which Dale makes about phraseology seems rather a stretch - particularly since the Book of Mormon text isn't really a part of the discovery narrative. Which is the more unlikely coincidence?
3: The Exact Location
Spalding: "on the top of a small mound"
Mormon: "on the west side of this hill not far from the top"
Dale: Both writers find records at or near the top of a hill. Spalding's mound was either a tumulus atop "Fort Hill" (across the creek from the old Conneaut cemetery) or an ancient burial mound near the hill. Spalding wrote the Oberlin story following his excavation of just such a mound near his cabin on Conneaut Creek. Fort Hill is remnant of alluvial conglomerate isolated from neighboring bluffs by erosion. The Hill Cumorah is a conglomerate moraine left by retreating glacial ice. Smith probably regarded the Hill Cumorah to be either an artificial tumulus or a natural mound that had once been mined to produce secret interior chambers. Spalding also related a tale of a similar interior chamber in his fictionalized hill or mound (see Item No. 07).
First, I have to say that I love the speculative mind reading. But getting past that, there are some real difference in the account. Smith finds his records in a small stone box near the top of the hill. What is at the top of Spalding's hill? Well, a more extended version of the comments reads:
As I was walking and forming vario[us] conjectures respecting the character situatuation & numbers of those people, who far exceeded the present race of Indians in works of art & inginuety I hapned to tread on a flat stone. This was < at > a small distance from the fort; & it lay on the top of a smal[l] mound of Earth exactly horizontal -- The face of it had a singular appearance. I discovered a number of characters which appeared to me to be letters -- but so much effaced by the ravages of time, that I could not read the inscription. With the assistance of a leaver I raised the stone -- But you may easily conjecture my astonishmen[t] when I discovered that at its ends & sides it [r]ested on stones & that it was designed [--] a cover to an artificial Cave. -- I found [--] examining that its sides were lined with [--] built in a connical from with [--] down -- & that it was abou[t] [p. 2] [e]ight feet deep -- Determined to investigate extra design of this extraordinary work of antiquity -- I prepared myself with necesary requisites for that purpose & decended to th[e] Bottom of the Cave -- Observing one side to be built < perpendicular > nearly three feet from the bottom, I began to inspect that part with accuracy; Here I noticed a big fla[t] stone fixed in the form of a doar, I imm[e]diatly tore it down & Lo a cavity wit[h]in the wall presented itself -- it being about three feet in diamiter from side to side & about two feet high Within this cavity I found an earthan Box ...
So yes, there is a hill. And while Joseph's stone box is found near the top of the hill, Spaldings box is found in a man made room, fairly deep inside the hill, in a (relatively) small chamber beyond a second stone door. So,
while it is clear that there is a parallel, I kind of question Dale's use of the phrase "Exact Location", since Spalding's records were not found "at or near the top of a hill", but rather in a chamber, at the bottom of a man made cavity cut eight feet into a hill. Joseph finds a stone box, with the lid of the box (containing the text) at ground level.
First, you admit "there is a parallel." In fact there are several parallels--walking up hill, stone, lever... Second you don't like Dale's phrase "exact location" and yet Dale never agues that both artifacts were found in the exact
same location rather he seems to be simply titling that particular set of parallels the "exact location." You complained about being nit-picky earlier, I'd have to say this is rather nit-picky. So the "parallel" you acknowledged is valid.
4: The Finder of the Ancient Records
Spalding: "As I was walking"
Mormon: "I arrived there"
Dale: Both narrations are first person descriptions of the events as told by the record finders themselves. Both sets of records were found by "Yankees," men of European descent born in the New England. Both Spalding and Smith say their respective discoveries occured when each finder was walking up a hill in the countryside. The lone Spalding appears to have been contemplating the ruins left by the ancient inhabitants of Conneaut, and wondering about their history. Smith (who was also alone at this point in his story) was probably having similar thoughts, for he had just been told by an angelic messenger of "the former inhabitants of this continent" (T&S III:753). Likewise, Spalding's fictional alter-ego of former times wonders much about "the ancestors of those... that possess this continent" (MS:033).
I love this part really. Somehow that both are first person accounts by the finder is something particularly noteworthy (really, how many third person accounts by the finder of some discovery do we usually get?)
Again you seem to want to apply tautological reasoning. Spalding could indeed have chosen to write in the third person. His account was fiction. He could have said my friend Sidney discovered Indian parchments and here's the account... He could have gone off in any number of non-parallel directions. But he didn't he chose to write a fictional account of himself finding ancient records! --or do you believe that Spalding really did find ancient parchment?
And more of the mind reading right? I mean, where does this fit into real histories? "Smith ... was probably having similar thoughts". And this is really about the best argument that can be made.
Not really. Dale supported his conjecture with evidence from the text. Such conjecture is reasonable.
Spalding's character was wandering and happened on the stone door to the cavern in which he found the chamber containing the box. Smith tells us of an angel leading him to the place. And while Dale suggests that both are alone, when Smith attempts to take the records, he tells us he was prevented. By what? An angel (apparently he wasn't really alone).
Apparently you missed this:
Smith (who was also alone at this point in his story)
Really... you complain about being nit-picky and then offer the above as criticism?
Continuing, you write:
And of course, when anyone finds an ancient record, we are of course interested in what it means about the former inhabitants. I refer you back to the quotes from 19th century sources dealing with the phrase "near the west bank" the second of which include this bit of text:
"... offers for the investigation of the antiquarian some very interesting remains. These are said to be the appearances of a very ancient settlement."
Obviously, stirring up some thoughts about the original inhabitants. The two go hand in hand. And we have whole fields of study that try to learn about past inhabitants from their remains.
The point is not that discovering something ancient leads one to wonder about the ancient inhabitants but that a fiction writer and an allegedly unrelated person who is allegedly telling his own true story share nearly the same experiences and wonderment.
5: Discovery of the Stone
Spalding: "I happened to tred on a flat stone... exactly horizontal"
Mormon: "under a stone of considerable size"
Dale: Both writers draw their readers' attention to an ancient stone lying horizontal with the surface of the mound or hill they had surmounted. It is the detection of this singular object which leads both Smith and Spalding to eventually discover ancient records buried beneath the slab. In Spalding's case the stone mentioned in his story was perhaps the fictionalized counterpart of an actual inscribed stone of unknown origin discovered near by Conneaut by the first pioneers entering that place.
Actually, this isn't true at all. In Smith's account, it isn't
the stone that leads him to the discovery (it certainly isn't the singular object) but the messanger who appears to Smith and seemingly escorts him to the stone.
More nit-pickiness. Dale never says it is "the stone that leads him to the discovery"; rather it is "the detection of" the stone that allows the discovery to proceed. If you believe Smith then you'll also believe that an angel led him to the spot, but the stone
is a key element in both accounts. You're either not understanding or deliberately twisting Dale's words.
And while Joseph's record is immediately below the stone (that is, the stone is a part of a stone box containing the record), once Spalding's character has realized that the stone covers a cavern, he goes and prepares himself to make the descent into the cave, and then finds the door to the chamber in which an earthen box contains the records. So yes, both accounts have a stone (in fact, Spalding's account has more than one). But, the nature of these stones, their roles in the discovery and such are quite different. Is it really a parallel?
Yes. If the accounts were exactly alike they would not be "parallel" but rather direct copies.
I am pretty certain I wouldn't identify it as such. I should also note that in Spalding's story, the stone itself is a text - and this feature is part of the discovery.
That you would not identify it as such does not make you right nor those who do wrong.
6: Lifting the Stone
Spalding: "With the assistance of a lever I raised the stone"
Mormon: "I obtained a lever which I got fixed under... the stone and... raised it up"
Dale: Both narrators are struck by a need to determine what is under the slab found on the wilderness elevation. Both quickly locate a lever (perhaps a sturdy branch) and use it to pry up and remove the strange stone away from its age-old resting place. In both cases the stone must have been too heavy or too tightly lodged to have been lifted with the fingers. Both accounts indicate that the heavy stone cover had been put in place by human hands in ancient times and that the narrator is the first person to look under the stone for a long long time.
Right. All of this is true. Let me proide a small excerpt from the Waverly Novels by Sir Walter Scott (published in 1814):
... he at length proceeded to a corner of the building where a fiat stone lay upon the ground, bearing upon its surface the effigy of an armed warrior in a recumbent posture carved in bas-relief. He muttered to Sir Arthur, " Mine patrons, it is here-Got save us all!" Sir Arthur, who, after the first moment of his superstitious fear was over, seemed to have bent up all his faculties to the pitch of resolution necessary to carry on the adventure, lent the adept his assistance to turn over the stone, which, by means of a lever that the adept had provided, their joint force with difficulty effected. No supernatural light burst forth from below to indicate the subterranean treasury, nor was there any apparition of spirits, earthly or infernal. But when Dousterswivel had, with great trepidation, struck a few strokes with a mattock, and as hastily thrown out a shovelful or two of earth (for they came provided with the tools necessary for digging,) something was heard to ring like the sound of a falling piece of metal, and Dousterswivel, hastily catching up the substance which produced it, and which his shovel had thrown out along with the earth, exclaimed, "On mine dear wort, mine patrons, dis is all —it is indeed; I mean all we can do to-night;"-and he gazed round him with a cowering and fearful glance, as if to see from what corner the avenger of his imposture was to start forth. "Let me see it," said Sir Arthur; and then repeated, still more sternly, "I will be satisfied -I will judge by mine own eyes." He accordingly held the object to the light of the lantern. It was a small case, or casket, -for Lovel could not at the distance exactly discern its shape, which, froml the Baronet's exclamation as he opened it, ...
So, the story of discovery, of the stone, often uses a lever to raise the stone. (In fact, it seems to me that there was a euphamism - uncommon perhaps - in the 19th century about being the lever that lifts). Parallel? Yes. Significant? Probably not.
Should I continue?
Only if you wish to convince me you are right. This is apparently the best argument you have. Like you, I do not deny the obvious parallels. Like you I do not see it as terribly impressive that Scott's version has similar elements, nevertheless, the differences you are quick to point to between Smith and Spalding are small in comparison to these... building not hill, room full of men, two men work the lever, no ancient writing, etc, etc.
That said, I still agree that there are parallels, the most striking of which is the lever. Since Spalding's account could possibly date to as late as 1816, it is quite possible that Spalding borrowed from Scott. Donofrio has shown convinsingly that Spalding borrows from Mercy Otis Warren so it is certainly possible that he may have borrowed some elements from Scott.
In any case, while this is your best shot so far, it does little to downplay the similarities between Smith and Spalding... they still exist. Even if Scott's account has no relationship to Spalding's, what you're arguing is: Spalding's account parallels Scott's by coincidence, therefore Spalding's account parallels Smith's by coincidence.
This is faulty. Essentially you point out three similarities in two allegedly unlrelated accounts (they could actually be related) and then use those common elements to argue that the same must be true for two accounts that are markedly more similar and are written by authors who were accused of having something in common
long before the second (Smith)wrote his account. Big difference. Even at it's best your argument is weak.
Perhaps you start to understand the skepticism (which I think is quite natural here).
Yes I do since, if I'm not mistaken, you are LDS then
your skepticism
is quite natural.
The parallels are couched in the best possible light. But they don't serve as real evidence of borrowing.
The parallels are presented in a straightforward manner. It is your criticism of them that is presented in "the best possible light." You yourself have acknowledged that they are "indeed parallels." Therefore they
are indeed evidence. If the claims of 1833 witnesses had any merit, we might anticipate finding evidence of parallels between the known writings of Smith and Spalding since Smith had gotten away with it once before. And we do see parallels between an account written by Spalding and another written by Smith. You bet that's evidence.
How many of these parallels could we find with Palmer's cursory comparison to the Golden Pot? And then there is the literary discussion. Why the need to borrow from such a source (and to borrow so little as to make it difficult to tell)? I love the claim that I get from time to time that Joseph changed enough so as to avoid claims of plagiarism. I see. That could be used on a comparison between any two texts. But for me, this isn't an adequate look - it is superficial, it is artifical, and it is parallelomania.
A certain amount of changes would have been necessary since Spalding is writing a fictional account about himself in Ohio and Smith is writing an alleged history of his own experience on a real hill in New York. People could have easily looked and discovered there was no cave at the top of the hill Cumorah.
Again, your best argument so far is the comparison between Scott's account and Spalding's and Smith's. But the point you wish to make when employing that argument fails since you apparently want us to conclude that: a small number of similarities in two
allegedly unrelated accounts is apparently the result of coincidence and, therefore, the greater number of similarities and the similar chronology we see between two accounts who's authors were indeed accused of being connected
prior to the production of the second account, is the result of similar coincidence.
You have provided no good reason for me to reject the idea that Smith probably used a manuscript written by Spalding to produce his allegedly first hand account of finding plates.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
