Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

[_Daniel Peterson]

The truth is, I am not paid to do this, so I have to earn a living on the side.

Nor am I paid to do this.

If you think I am, you've been reading far, far too much Scratch.

Time spent on the internet, for me, is time away from researching, writing, editing, administrative duties, bishoping, family, my interests in art and music and literature and politics, and, when I'm teaching, from course preparation and paper-grading.

The truth is you have years of experience and lot's of books and resources you can consult. I have the internet and Dale.

I haven't paid much attention to the Spalding theory for decades. And, truth be told, it's difficult for me to focus much interest on it now, either.

But I'll try.

Which is sort of my complaint, with all due respect. I can put a 2008 Ford Taurus and a 55 Chevy Pickup in front of you and and say look I see some similarities here... they both have 4 wheels, they both have a steering wheel, they both have seats, they both have an engine, they both run on gasoline, etc, etc and you say "Well I'm sorry I just don't see it like that." Now you might be thinking, one's a Ford the other's a Chevy, one is a truck the other is a sedan, one is red the other blue... I don't know what you're thinking... but if all you say is: "I just don't see it" after I've pointed out the similarities, what I am to do with that?

My response would likely be to point to the scores if not hundreds of significant differences between them -- e.g., brakes, transmission, sound system, air conditioning, suspension, and so on and so forth -- and to suggest that your notion that the design of the 2008 Ford Taurus was copied from the 55 Chevy pickup needs a lot more evidence to back it up than is presently on offer.

It seems to me, too, that it's very easy to abstract two agenda-driven lists of items from a pair of texts that are, in reality, very, very different, and, by presenting them side by side, consciously or unwittingly exaggerate the supposed similarities between the two documents. (Grant Palmer's absurd effort to link the Moroni story with E. T. A. Hofmann's Der goldne Topf, which was only made worse by Palmer's inaccuracies and his surreptitious re-ordering of the listed elements to make them correspond better, is a spectacular illustration of this error.) Like mikwut, I've always been much more impressed by the differences between Spalding's novel and the Book of Mormon, which I see as fundamental and deep, than by what I've always seen, and continue to see, as truly shallow, cherry-picked "similarities."

Well that is certainly consistent with how one would expect an LDS apologist to think, so you're certainly not offering any surprises.

Do you really not see the potential problem of a carefully chosen matched pair of lists that could be constructed in order to make two very different texts appear almost identical? Especially if, as with Grant Palmer's venture, the order of the lists is surreptiously altered so that they seem more similar still? Do you really think that's merely an "LDS apologist's" (possibly feigned) methodological concern?

Since you can't offer much in the way of commentary on the similarities and prefer to discuss the differences, why should I be impressed with the differences?

Don't presume that I "can't" deal with the similarities. I'm simply trying to muster the enthusiasm to attempt to explain why what I think is transparently and immediately obvious ought to be obvious to you, as well. But it's actually rather hard to do that. I mean, if something instantly and transparently obvious to X isn't at all apparent to Y, X might find it very difficult to go much beyond that, especially when we're talking about something as subjective as judgments of "importance" or "significance."

I don't think either Smith or Rigdon were dumb. I think they were a bit nervous about getting caught.

And I, by contrast, think the whole Rigdon/Spalding theory is pure fantasy, with extraordinarily little to recommend it but a whole lot of baseless conjecture.

So we seem to have a fundamental difference in what we see as important with regard to these two texts.

Yes, and that's the problem. Judging what's significant or not is, essentially, a matter of taste. And, as the Latin saying has it, De gustibus non est disputandum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_gustibu ... isputandum

One thing I would want to do, in this case, would be to quote as many of Spalding's actual words and as many of the Book of Mormon's actual words as possible.

We'll we're actually talking about two different things... two different sets of parallels... I DID write Book of Mormon in the title of this thread and I do believe there are parallels between the Book of Mormon and the Roman Story, but what I was specifically refering to earlier is the similarities between the Roman story and the Smith account of finding plates. For the time being, maybe we could focus on those similarities and move on to the Book of Mormon from there?

I don't know that we'll "move on from there" -- my very powerful lack of interest in the Spalding/Rigdon theory is real and unfeigned, and decades old -- but I'm willing to go through the short list of purported similarities that you've mentioned. (Just not right now. I didn't get down to the computer before 7:00 AM in order to spend the day on MDB.)

And you still see nothing remarkable in that?

I see little or nothing significantly "close" in the purported parallels. I really don't.

[_William Schryver]

The first anti-Mormon book I ever read was Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?

This was in 1978. I had just barely read the Book of Mormon itself for the first time. The Davis/Cowdery/Scales book laid out the case for the Spaulding origins of the Book of Mormon. I had never read, nor would I have even known the meaning of, any LDS "apologetics." My only training in logic and reasoning was as a member of a champion high school debate team.

And yet, when faced with what some consider to be the persuasive arguments for the "Spaulding Theory," I was singularly unimpressed.

The bottom line? I found Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? to be a tendentious exercise in forcing a square peg into a round hole. In short, I thought it was ridiculous; a set of assertions without substantive evidentiary merit, and I have never since given the "Spaulding Theory" a second thought.
.
.
.
.
=====================>

[_Uncle Dale]

The first anti-Mormon book I ever read was Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?

This was in 1978. I had just barely read the Book of Mormon itself for the first time. The Davis/Cowdery/Scales book laid out the case for the Spaulding origins of the Book of Mormon. I had never read, nor would I have even known the meaning of, any LDS "apologetics." My only training in logic and reasoning was as a member of a champion high school debate team.

And yet, when faced with what some consider to be the persuasive arguments for the "Spaulding Theory," I was singularly unimpressed.

The bottom line? I found Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? to be a tendentious exercise in forcing a square peg into a round hole. In short, I thought it was ridiculous; a set of assertions without substantive evidentiary merit, and I have never since given the "Spaulding Theory" a second thought.

I also saw the 1977 book. For me it seemed largely an exercise in futility, in that
the authors were trying very hard to prove that pages in Spalding's handwriting
had been preserved among the remnants of the original Book of Mormon manuscript in the
LDS archives. The 1977 book also contained a chapter on the Book of Abraham,
which seemed to me, at the time, to be a bunch of unrelated "filler."

So, as 1978 and 1979 went by, I had my suspicions confirmed, that there were NO
Spalding pages in the LDS archives, and that some of the arguments set forth in
the 1977 book were sidetracking the original controversy between the "Smith-alone"
authorship proponents and the "Smith-with-help" authorship proponents. Luckily I
had the extended input of the late Vernal Holley, whose insight on these matters
served as a good counterbalance to the 1977 book.

Vernal compiled his own Spalding-Rigdon source material and suggested that Spalding's
known writings be consulted, in order to determine if it were possible that ANY of the
Book of Mormon text could have been written by Spalding. He and I concurred that the portion of
1st Nephi, singled out in the 1977 "Who Really Wrote" book, was theologically and
thematically an unlikely candidate for Spalding authorship. Vernal pointed, instead, to
the last part of Alma, and particularly to the wars and battle exploits therein narrated,
as the best match with Spalding's language that he could locate in the Book of Mormon.

Thus, the 1977 book served as an incentive for Vern and I to look more carefully into
the texts themselves, and to view with skepticism ALL of the external arguments,
both pro and con, for a Spalding/Rigdon/Smith connection. At the same time, we heard
that Howard Davis was also conducting similar comparative textual studies. For many
years he kept that project a secret, and it was only a few years ago that Howard
turned over to me the manuscript for a second "Who Really Wrote" volume which he
had compiled. I found his material interesting, but not conclusive, either way.

One other thing that the 1977 book made me aware of, was how difficult it was to
access the old writings of Eber D. Howe, Arthur B. Deming, the 1830s Palmyra newspapers,
William H. Whitsitt's biography of Sidney Rigdon, etc. With this frustration in mind, I
began a cooperative effort with MIke Marquardt to assemble in one filing cabinet
photocopies of all the old historical sources quoted by Kirkwood, Nibley, Roberts, etc.

I am still adding to that assemblage, from time to time -- but the primary materials have
been published in Vogel's 5 volume set of Early Mormon Documents.

The 1977 book's allegations and publicity also helped provide a context for my
submitting a study proposal on the topic, which eventually ended up on the desks
of United Methodist educators, and scored me a two-year graduate scholarship in
an Ohio seminary, near to where the Spalding documents are preserved. So, perhaps
I should thank Howard Davis, Wayne Cowdrey and Art Vanick for helping me to get
accepted into that Master's program.

Life has some unlikely twists and turns, no?

UD

.

[_TAK]

Quite a bit more complex than Joseph prying up a stone covering a stone box.

-WW

Oh Jos. had his cave too..

"According to some of those leaders, Joseph Smith and others returned the plates to a cave in the Hill Cumorah after he finished translating them. At least 10 different accounts, all secondhand, refer to this cave and what was found there."

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/jbms/?vo ... m=1&id=338

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Quite a bit more complex than Joseph prying up a stone covering a stone box.

-WW

Oh Jos. had his cave too..

"According to some of those leaders, Joseph Smith and others returned the plates to a cave in the Hill Cumorah after he finished translating them. At least 10 different accounts, all secondhand, refer to this cave and what was found there."

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/jbms/?vo ... m=1&id=338

Quick questions: Where does Joseph Smith himself describe the cave and what is the date of the description, and how does it relate to the original discovery of the plates in a stone box in the ground?

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Where does Joseph Smith himself describe the cave and what is the date of the description, and how does it relate to the original discovery of the plates in a stone box in the ground?

The one verified "cave" was a tunnel Smith and associates bored into Miner's Hill.

There is no cave or internal cavity in Hill Cumorah and Smith nowhere describes anything
of that sort. In Oct. 1835, Smith did allow Oliver Cowdery to tell a little about the discovery
of the so-called "plates," and Cowdery said this:

How far below the surface [of Hill Cumorah] these records [Nephite plates] were placed
by Moroni, I am unable to say; but from the fact that they had been some fourteen hundred
years buried, and that too on the side of a hill so steep, one is ready to conclude that they
were some feel below, as the earth would naturally wear more or less in that length of time.

But they being placed toward the top of the hill, the ground would not remove as much as at
two thirds, perhaps. Another circumstance would prevent a wearing of the earth: in all probability,
as soon as timber had time to grow, the hill was covered, after the Nephites were destroyed,
and the roots of the same would hold the surface. However, on this point I shall leave every man
to draw his own conclusion, and form his own speculation,
http://www.centerplace.org/history/ma/v2n01.htm#196

In other words, Cowdery describes a cavity fairly deep within the hill, in which the so-called
"Nephite record" was hid up. This must have originally been something rather different from
the single flat stone Smith reported finding.In fact, in one telling of the story, Smith removes
dirt from the desposit, before he encounters the flat stone and pries it up.

While Cowdery's description is not exactly that of a voluminous cavern, hidden deep
within an artificial hill (that is, in an Indian mound), the description appears to indicate
that layers of earth and rock had been put in place to bury the "stone box" fairly deep
in what could have been an artificial tumulus.



See my comments, here:
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap04.htm#it07

UD

[_DonBradley]

Joseph Smith certainly did describe a cave in the Hill Cumorah, of which we have numerous accounts, both unfriendly and friendly, and about which a piece has been published in The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. We have no surviving firsthand statements from Joseph Smith on the matter, but we have quite enough from David Whitmer, Brigham Young (relying on Oliver Cowdery), and Smith family neighbors.

by the way, Dale, cool stuff on the tumulus.

Don

[Guest]

Joseph Smith certainly did describe a cave in the Hill Cumorah, of which we have numerous accounts, both unfriendly and friendly, and about which a piece has been published in The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. We have no surviving firsthand statements from Joseph Smith on the matter, but we have quite enough from David Whitmer, Brigham Young (relying on Oliver Cowdery), and Smith family neighbors.

by the way, Dale, cool stuff on the tumulus.

Don

I'm familiar with the second-hand accounts, and believe it can be considered more of a visionary experience than an actual cave entered. (For instance, see http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/jbms/?vo ... m=1&id=338).

Cowdery's description is his own speculation on the subject, as he notes. Further, I don't know that Smith "allowed" Cowdery to relate those things, it seems like that is too brief a way to describe the published letters of Cowdery's. Regardless, it seems he was more concerned about erosion on the hill, and assumed the plates had been buried and not moved since 400AD or thereabouts. This, however, is not clear from the Book of Mormon or the statements of Joseph, who was the one led to the plates, is it? And if Joseph mentions it, how do we know he was not making an assumption? Joseph doesn't describe anything like a cave. He describes a stone box under a large rock. In my view, this differs sufficiently from an account of a parchment found in a cave with characters written on a rock door of sorts.

[_TAK]

Quick questions: Where does Joseph Smith himself describe the cave and what is the date of the description, and how does it relate to the original discovery of the plates in a stone box in the ground?

LMAO!
doesn't really matter.. there are enough varied accounts that it is clear a cave is part of the myth ..

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Quick questions: Where does Joseph Smith himself describe the cave and what is the date of the description, and how does it relate to the original discovery of the plates in a stone box in the ground?

LMAO!
doesn't really matter.. there are enough varied accounts that it is clear a cave is part of the myth ..

LOAP!
Except that the cave myth deals with the return of the plates, not their discovery and there are still differences between those accounts and the parchment episode from the Romans story.