Mikwut wrote:The ridiculous testimony concerning a stranger appeals to your sense of reason and causes you no angst.
What ridiculous testimony are you referring to?
The Aron Wright statement that was never signed, contrary to Howe' s diligence in doing so is accepted cart blanche by you but without it there isn't any early testimony that allows for another manuscript and Aron Wrights first statement essentially rules that out - but no problem that is just a Mormon apologist, all the other enormous difficulties with this idea just allow for your speculation without any angst and just zingers of "Mormon apologists" and "bias" thrown loosely around when in fact many professional non-Mormon historians don't buy it - but that doesn't create any dissonance for you, I could go on.....
Just because Howe didn’t put in his book every single signed statement in his possession does not mean Hurlbut didn’t give him a signed Aaron Wright statement. Hurlbut’s procedure we know was to write up a draft of witnesses’ statements before writing a final version for their signature. We have what appears to be a draft version of Aaron Wright's testimony in Hurlbut's handwriting. The draft is consistent in words used and consistent in perspective to Aaron Wrights earlier Aug 1833 signed statement.
Let's appreciate, Howe was not a police investigator he was a newspaper editor and wrote his book on Mormonism not specifically on the Spalding/Rigdon theory. He said in Mormonism Unvailed, that the Spalding Roman story given him by Hurlbut was the only one Hurlbut brought back. He outlined what the Roman story was about and that it was written in a modern style...so obviously it wasn't consistent with the manuscript the Conneaut witnesses gave testimony of earlier to that manuscript being obtained and shown to Howe. Howe accounts for this obvious inconsistency by writing in the book: “This old M.S. has been shown to several of the foregoing witnesses, who recognize it as Spalding’s, he having told them that he had altered his first plan of writing, by going further back with the dates, and writing in the old scripture style, in order that it might appear more ancient. They say it bears no resemblance to Manuscript Found”.
As you say Howe was quite diligent. He wrote in a letter Apr 8th 1885 , witnessed by A. Deming ..
" Before publishing my Book I went to Conneaut and saw most of the witnesses who had seen Spauldings Manuscript Found and had testified to its identity with the Book of Mormon as published in my book and was satisfied they were men of intelligence and respectibility and were not mistaken in their statements.
I published only a small part of the statements Hurlbut let me have. Among them was a Manuscript written by Solomon Spaulding which he called Conneaut Story. "
So not only is it reasonable to assume he likely verified that witnesses had seen the Spalding M.S. but it would be quite reasonable if he had copies of a signed testimony from a few of them, that he would summarize their statements. What was obvious was not important to back up with signed witness statements. Does it seem unreasonable that witnesses when shown the Roman M.S. and it being obviously inconsistent with their earlier signed statements that they explain that inconsistency by stating that wasn't the one they had referenced? Why should Howe include material which is reasonable to accept. If the reader of Howe's book is going to assume either Howe is lying or the witnesses' lied to him about there being another manuscipt they referenced then that same reader is going to accuse the Spalding witnesses of lying in their earlier statements as well.
Howe does not come across as deviously anti Mormon and in a conspiracy with Hurlbut.
His letter to Isaac Hale illustrates this.
http://www.solomonspalding.com/NEWSP/HOWE/Ex04a.htmPainesville, Ohio, Feb. 4, 1834.
Mr. Isaac Hale, --
Dear Sir, -- I have a letter with your signature, post-marked Dec. 22, 1833 -- addressed to D. P. Hurlbut, on the subject of Mormonism. I have taken all the letters and documents from Mr. Hurlbut, with a view to their publication. An astonishing mass has been collected by him and others, who have determined to lay open the imposition to the world. And as the design is to present facts, and those well authenticated, and beyond dispute, it is very desireable, that your testimony, whatever it may be, should come authenticated before a magistrate.
Your letter has already been pronounced a forgery by the Mormons, who say you are blind and cannot write, even your name. I hope no one have attempted to deceive us: deception and falsehood in this business will do no good in the end, but will help build up the monstrous delusion. We look upon your connexion with Smith, and your knowledge of facts as very important, in the chain of events, -- and if it be your desire to contribute what facts you know, in so desirable an undertaking, I hope you will without delay, have drawn up a full narative of every transaction wherein Smith, jun'r. is concerned and attest them before a magistrate -- This is our plan.
E. D. HOWE.
To note, Howe acknowledges having an “astonishing mass” of letters and documents from Hurlbut. It is unreasonable to expect him to put a copy of everything he has in his book. It is quite understandable for him to reduce to a concise summary the Aaron Wright’s, John Miller’s, Oliver Smith’s and other’s testimonies upon reviw of the Spalding MS.
It’s obvious the Spalding M.S. is not consistent with the earlier testimonies given by the Conneaut witnesses, it’s obvious it wasn’t used for plagiarism for the Book of Mormon. The fact that Howe didn’t put into his book that he had seen a copy of their signed statements to that effect, or didn’t put into his book a copy of their signed statements..does not enable one to conclude as you have Mikwut that Howe never observed those signed statements from those witnesses that Hurlbut said he obtained. And it also doesn’t mean that Howe neglected to get a verbal verification of this from the witnesses.
So Mikwut..just because a signed statement of that draft letter apparently a testimony Hurlbut got from Aaron Wright does not mean it is unreliable just because it’s not signed. And also, just because one has a signed statement does mean one can automatically trust that the contents of that statement are truthful. There are a lot of factors to consider in evaluating the reliability data. It’s not a black and white simple matter of whether a signature is obtained or not. Look at the 3 witnesses' Book of Mormon testimony signed..do you really think their signatures to that statement makes that statement credible and reliable as to fact of what actually occurred? I guess you are the wrong person to ask, you probably do.