Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

[_mikwut]

Roger,

The beauty of the S/R position is that it is the only Book of Mormon production theory that can accomodate all the data.

That's the beauty of conspiracy theories, they can stretch like a balloon as far as they need to. In my first post on the long Spalding thread I pointed out the remarkable manifold ability of historical reconstruction. All history has difficulty accomodating "ALL" the data. I recommended that interested parties read an interesting read called Dead Certainties by Simon Schama. I don't think your use of the word "broad" concerning the theory helps the theory. The more complex you make it the more difficulty it has obtaining historical warrant.

Okay now we're finally getting down to where the rubber meets the road. You don't believe....

In short you don't believe the Spalding witnesses and, in short, I see no good reason to think they are lying. If you can show that they are indeed lying or if you can provide good reasons to suspect that they are lying, then your case might be stronger.

I am not aware of a critical examination of the Spalding theory that insists or even insinuates that the witnesses were lying. If your getting that in your discussions I suggest your not talking to those familiar enough to provide you with a proper criticism. The criticism of the witnesses is manifold and includes the difficulties of testimony and memory. Of the following ten statements, some relevant for Conn. witnesses others not so much:

1. Memory is like a video recording of your observations that can be played back at will to remind you of what you saw.
2. When you are very confident about your memory for an event you observed, you are much more likely to be correct.
3. Your memory is stable over time.
4. Your memory for what you originally saw can be kept separate from things you learned after observing the event.
5. People's faces stand out when you observe them and it is easy to remember faces, so recognition of faces is rarely in error.
6. An eyewitness report is accurate evidence as to who was present and what happened.
7. Having to tell the same story of what happened over and over reinforces it and makes it more resistant to change.
8. When a weapon is visible during a crime, witnesses are more accurate in remembering the details of the crime.
9. Personally experienced traumatic events are remembered more accurately than everyday ones.
10. Observed violent events are remembered more accurately than everyday events.

all are believed by most people to be true even according to studies very true, but scientists have clearly demonstrated that in fact all ten are not true in regards to our memory and the majority of memory experts disagrees with each statement. (Some of the recent scientific descriptions of memory functioning can be found in Loftus, 1979; Ross, Read & Toglio, 1994; Rubin, 1996; Sporer, Malpass & Koehnken, 1996; and Davies, Ellis & Shepherd, 1981.)

I was made aware of Loftus' research as a history student and became intimately familiar with it as a lawyer. Every young criminal defense lawyer can't understand why their clients lie to them when they come into the office. I use to complain incessantly to my wife that client comes in tells me A, I obtain discovery and find B. What reason would they have to lie to me? After experience it becomes (although many do indeed lie) much more accurate to understand the failings of memory as the culprit and not intentional deceit. The Conn. witnesses were not lying but that does not change the fact that their testimony cannot be taken as accurate history. Credibility is also not the issue because deceit isn't the issue.

The length of time between the witnesses observations and experiences and their recall to Hurlbut, the acquiring of new information prior to recalling, the way in which Hurlbut obtained the testimony (this is not an accusation against his intent or credibility) the overlapping testimony, the emotional interest after hearing Pratt preach, the lack of enough independent recall, and the length of time between further testimony etc.. all puts into question their testimony, in a very fundamental, basic and well understood scientific way. This is so basic to historical studies it amazes me that so many S/R theorists cling so tightly to "credibility" and "lying". It isn't relevant.

my regards, mikwut

[_Roger]

I just lost about an hour's worth of time by pushing the wrong button, so I will try to reconstruct what I wrote, but it's very frustrating... I feel Joseph Smith's pain! LOL

I would like to consider & respond to what mikwut has written and invite commentary from Dale and marg and Ben as well....

I am not aware of a critical examination of the Spalding theory that insists or even insinuates that the witnesses were lying. If your getting that in your discussions I suggest your not talking to those familiar enough to provide you with a proper criticism. The criticism of the witnesses is manifold and includes the difficulties of testimony and memory.

Well I assumed that is the position Ben is taking, but maybe I'm assuming too much.

The Conn. witnesses were not lying but that does not change the fact that their testimony cannot be taken as accurate history.

Now this is an interesting statement. It really makes me wonder what criteria would need to be satisfied before you would accept any testimony as being "accurate history"?

I think it is relevant to ask... do you accept the Book of Mormon witness testimony as being "accurate history"? If so, why and if not, why not?

Be that as it may, if you are not going to take the position that the Conn. witnesses are simply lying, then I think you'll have a very difficult time attempting to demonstrate that Hurlbut was the instigator of a plot to link Smith with Spalding.

Credibility is also not the issue because deceit isn't the issue.

Again, I think you're setting yourself up for a no-win situation because if the Conn. witnesses were not trying to be deceitful, then they actually believed they were telling the truth. That makes it very difficult to argue that Hurlbut manipulated them.

For example, let's take the case of John Spalding.... here is what he had to say in 1833:

Solomon Spalding was born in Ashford, Conn. in 1761, and in early life contracted a taste for literary pursuits. After he left school, he entered Plainfield Academy, where he made great proficiency in study, and excelled most of his class-mates. He next commenced the study of Law, in Windham county, in which he made little progress, having in the mean time turned his attention to religious subjects. He soon after entered Dartmouth College, with the intention of qualifying himself for the ministry, where he obtained the degree of A. M. and was afterwards regularly ordained. After preaching three or four years, he gave it up, removed to Cherry Valley, N. Y, and commenced the mercantile business in company with his brother Josiah. -- In a few years he failed in business, and in the year 1809 removed to Conneaut, in Ohio. The year following, I removed to Ohio, and found him engaged in building a forge. I made him a visit in about three years after; and found that he had failed, and considerably involved in debt. He then told me he had been writing a book, which he intended to have printed, the avails of which he thought would enable him to pay all his debts. The book was entitled the "Manuscript Found," of which he read to me many passages. -- It was a historical romance of the first settlers of America, endeavoring to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews, or the lost tribes. It gave a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till they arrived in America, under the command of NEPHI and LEHI. They afterwards had quarrels and contentions, and separated into two distinct nations, one of which he denominated Nephites and the other Lamanites. Cruel and bloody wars ensued, in which great multitudes were slain. They buried their dead in large heaps, which caused the mounds so common in this country. Their arts, sciences and civilization were brought into view, in order to account for all the curious antiquities, found in various parts of North and South America. I have recently read the Book of Mormon, and to my great surprize I find nearly the same historical matter, names, &c. as they were in my brother's writings. I well remember that he wrote in the old style, and commenced about every sentence with "and it came to pass," or "now it came to pass," the same as in the Book of Mormon, and according to the best of my recollection and belief, it is the same as my brother Solomon wrote, with the exception of the religious matter. -- By what means it has fallen into the hands of Joseph Smith, Jr. I am unable to determine. JOHN SPALDING."

Now can you please point out the elements of the above testimony that were influenced by Hurlbut? And can you then please explain your reasoning for so concluding?

For example, what justification do you have for thinking John--the brother of Solomon Spalding--doesn't know what he's talking about when he says:

I have recently read the Book of Mormon, and to my great surprize I find nearly the same historical matter, names, &c. as they were in my brother's writings.

That's quite a feat for Hurlbut to have implanted that false memory into the mind of John Spalding(!) don't you think?

And how is it that you--a 21st century observer--want me to believe that you are right about John's memory being faulty when he was actually there and he actually grew up with Solomon Spalding? Especially when he says:

I well remember that he wrote in the old style, and commenced about every sentence with "and it came to pass," or "now it came to pass," the same as in the Book of Mormon, and according to the best of my recollection and belief, it is the same as my brother Solomon wrote, with the exception of the religious matter.

The Roman story is not written in the "old style" and nearly every sentence does not commence with "And it came to pass"... yet you want me to believe that John gave that statement and was not lying, but instead Hurlbut implanted this level of detailed false memory into the brother of John Spalding??? In spite of teh fact that John flatly tells me "I well remember..." you want me to believe he doesn't? And your logic for wanting me to accept that is...... ?

The length of time between the witnesses observations and experiences and their recall to Hurlbut,

So then because John gave his statement in 1833--about 19 - 21 years after his experience--you think he could not have remembered Lehi or Nephi or Lamanite, etc? I have not cracked open The Winds of War and War & Remembrance since I was 24... that's 21 years ago... let's see... right off the top of my head I remember Pug Henry. Pug was a Captain. His son's love interest was named.... Natalie, I think. Let's see... his son was named... Brian?.... no I think it was Byron. And his wife... hmmm... can't remember... something like Kate maybe?... foggy on that one. Natalie was a Jew... she had a grandpa.... what was his name???? Jewish name.... can't remember that one.

Now I read Winds of War as a teenager and then War & Remembrance at around twenty three or twenty four. Haven't cracked it open since then. That means I was exposed to Wouk's novels twice. Let's see how well I did...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_and_Remembrance

Well wiki uses his given name "Victor" but Wouk refers to him nearly all the time by his nick-name "Pug"... so I got that one right

Got Natalie right (of course I remember that name because I like it) and I got Byron right, too.

Couldn't remember Rhoda which is odd since it's an unusual name but then again she's not a very prominent character.

I should have remembered Aaron Jastrow, but didn't. Of course now that my memory has been jogged I remember all those names--and this of course is another key point...

S/R critics are quick to condemn Hurlbut for allegedly "coaching" but the fact is they do not know whether he did or not, and in the second place if someone would have said... Roger, do you remember reading about "Aaron Jastrow" in Wouk's novels? Then, bing! the light goes on and I truthfully answer yes, I just couldn't recall his name until you mentioned it.

So... no, sorry, I don't buy the idea that John Spalding, etc. could not remember the details they claim to have remembered. The fact is these people claim to have perused and read from and heard read from Spalding's writings many times.

the acquiring of new information prior to recalling,

1. you cannot prove this happened
2. even if it did it does not mean their testimony is invalid

...as I just demonstrated, I DID READ Wouk's novels over 20 years ago. But I can't remember everything in them (and I have a rotten memory, by the way) so if someone were to ask... well do you remember a Rhoda in the story? Then I'm going to say, yes, by george, Pug's wife!

the way in which Hurlbut obtained the testimony (this is not an accusation against his intent or credibility)

Well if you're going to assume Hurlbut was out to get Smith and that the witnesses weren't lying then where do the consistent false memories come from? Remember that overlap thing you also want to complain about? At some point you've got to point the finger at someone or simply just take the witnesses at their word.

Hurlbut was not a professional fact gatherer. In fact journalism as a whole had different standards then that it does now. Hurlbut did the best he knew how to do. The facts speak to his sincerity because if he would have wanted to "get" Smith at the expense of truth, he could have done a much better job.

the overlapping testimony,

This is the criticism I find the most ridiculous of all! This is the idea that the witnesses must have been coached because too much of what they say agrees! I mean think about that. Sheesh.

the emotional interest after hearing Pratt preach,

So what? You're saying emotional people can't remember? Emotions can serve to bring up memories and make them as vivid as the day they were experienced.... amazingly, that's exactly what several of the witnesses claim!

the lack of enough independent recall,

What on earth do you mean by this? Several of the witnesses remembered unique elements. John Miller obviously was impressed by red paint. As I already mentioned, John Spalding is the only one to mention "Lehi son of Japheth" --these witnesses can't win! When they argree you cry coaching and when they offer unique material you claim there is a lack of "enough independent recall"

and the length of time between further testimony etc..

This is also pretty lame. Howe published his book in 1834... that was only four years after the Book of Mormon was published. People who supported the original witnesses continued to come out of the woodwork with--in some cases unsolicited--supporting testimony for another 25+ years and you see that as problematic for S/R? I suspect that if no one would have come forth later you would see that as a problem too.

Does it count for nothing that none of the witnesses recanted? Ever? None of them ever said "Hurlbut influenced my testimony" and none of them even slipped up and let something like that out by mistake? All that matters is that earlier testimony is allegedly too consistent ( )and later testimony is too late?

all puts into question their testimony, in a very fundamental, basic and well understood scientific way.

No it doesn't. Sorry but that's just wrong. If Hurlbut is manipulating testimony then in order to get the level of "overlap" you want to complain about he has to literally implant false but consistent memories into the brains of many people--not just the Conneaut 8--some of which he has no control over! All of these people then have to think they are telling the truth when in fact they are not. And then as the story gains more publicity and unsolicited testimony begins to come forth, Hurlbut somehow gets those people to think they are telling the truth as well!

Sorry... too far-fetched. That's why I suggested you go with the idea that all 8 Conneaut witnesses were out to get Smith just like Hurlbut and they just flat out lied. And then as more anti-Mormons find out about it they see an opportunity to jump in on the lie if it will bring the Mormons down. That's easier to accept than the idea that Hurlbut has superhuman powers.

This is so basic to historical studies it amazes me that so many S/R theorists cling so tightly to "credibility" and "lying". It isn't relevant.

my regards, mikwut

You seem like a thoughtful guy. But I don't think you've thought this through very well. Certainly if you can legitimately call the S/R testimony into question, then you can severely minimize the S/R theory. But you have not made a dent. None of the criticisms you listed are valid reasons to reject the testimony. If there were only 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 people claiming these things then maybe your arguments would have more impact.

But there is a mass of witnesses all claiming that there is a connection between the writings of Solomon Spalding and the writings of Joseph Smith. This testimony started appearing shortly after the Book of Mormon was published and then, amazingly, parallels later show up between something Smith wrote in 1838 and Spalding had written sometime before 1816. That is either a remarkable coincidence or the witnesses knew what they were talking about--and I still have seen no good reason to suspect that they did not.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Marg writes:

Ben once again... that the Book of Mormon is in Elizabethan english is only one bit of evidence to consider within the bigger picture of evidentiary data.

You keep saying this marg, but the reality is that its not evidence for plagiarism. And so even if you add to all sorts of other things that aren't also evidence for plagiarism, you don't end up with a coherent argument for plagiarism.

Any argument is only as good as it component pieces. And if the component pieces aren't very convincing, then the larger whole of which it is made isn't convincing either. There is a tendancy - particuarly when working with parallels to go from the notion that a whole lot of them is significant. When in fact, arguments of this sort are made using very specific things.

One of the most useful arguments in showing reliance or plagiarism involves the use of hapex legomenon. Its the idea that something shows up in a text that occurs nowhere else in that text or even in the corpus of material left by that author. This kind of evidence is considered very strong. Or the idea that material shows up in the way it does specifically because of its appearance someplace else. There has to be very specific details. It is easy to argue, for example, in the Book of Mormon that the Isaiah material appears the way that it does specifically because of the way it appears in the KJV. Thus, the Book of Mormon is reliant on the KJV. (As I note though, this can be said of other translations, so it itself isn't evidence of anything about the original). One of the problems that occurs here, and which none of the proponents of the Spalding theory really seem to want to deal with (except for Dale - who I think would in fact be quite interested in changing his approach were he 30 years younger with all the time necessary to do it) is that we have established methods to deal with these issues on a textual basis - that don't require the appeals to non-existent and unknown manuscripts, and perhaps plausible but purely speculative time lines and scenarios.

As far as for religous purposes...in and of itself there is nothing special or connected to any divine entity about middle english. Until you can objectively establish God ..claiming God is connected to any book can not be established either. Any divine claims amount to no more than mere assertions. And since you are familiar with the concept of circular reasoning, you can appreciate that conclusion based upon premises which are mere assertions are not reliable and should be rejected as established.

What's interesting to me about this argument is that it is completely pointless. It is easy to suggest what God wouldn't do, isn't it.

Why don't you tell us what exactly a divine translation would look like. Is God a word-for-word kind of translator? An idea-for-idea kind of guy? Who would its intended audience be? And so on. These questions all fascinate me. (There is even some small body of published literature that tends to touch on these issues which I am familiar with). But if you want to make the statements you make above, I would appreciate some answers to these questions here. Ultimately, this is simply another appeal to the angel, but I am curious to know if you have actually given it any thought at all.

The reason why I suggest that it is simply an appeal to the angel is that it really has no impact on the question of the Spalding story. Your deciding what its not really has no real value on the question of what it is.

In this regard, what I find most interesting are places in the Book of Mormon text that seem to reference, quote, or allude to biblical texts where the KJV language is not used. These, I find quite fascinating. But again, that's a whole different issue.

I am told (yesterday) that my copy of the new JOBMSARS should be in my hands in 5-6 weeks, and you all can read my arguments in there shortly thereafter.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

However, when one considers more than just the parallels... when one also considers the context in which they originated, that context can shed additional light on whether they actually are related or are merely an illusion.

What context? Seriously. I am reminded in this discussion of when B.H. Roberts introduced parallels to Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews. And suddenly a new fad surfaced. Ethan's book was well known in the area, contemporary, and so on. Most, if not all, of your "context" is speculative and hypothetical. And don't get me wrong, I have considered your context. And it didn't change anything.

The beauty of the S/R position is that it is the only Book of Mormon production theory that can accomodate all the data.

Except that it doesn't. In fact, most S/R theorists simply haven't looked at all the data - they are just looking for some very specific issues. It's kind of like stacking the deck. I have yet to see a S/R theorist take the time to actually respond to the other theories of modern authorship. And simply dismissing them as being unconvincing seems like a hollow argument to me. It isn't enough either to say that yours is simply the best theory either. Show that it is the best. Address the arguments made by the other theorists.

I'm sure there are indeed anti-masonic themes present in the Book of Mormon.

And I am certain that there isn't.

Again, evaluating parallels is a subjective endeavor.

What's interesting to me is that there is clearly a body of scholarly literature devoted to this topic - complete with widely accepted tools and methdology. And yet, you are are doing everything you can to avoid accepting this methodology or these tools. Why? I would think, if you could use it to make your case, wouldn't that be a good thing?

In general, though, the more parallels one sees and the closer the examples, the more reasonable it is to conclude dependence.

Why is this the case? This is an assumption (flawed) on your part. I want to understand why you believe this to be true. This is not a common sense issue - I want a detailed defense of this opinion.

In short you don't believe the Spalding witnesses and, in short, I see no good reason to think they are lying. If you can show that they are indeed lying or if you can provide good reasons to suspect that they are lying, then your case might be stronger.

I have already explained this. Clearly, most (if not all) of the statements you use were solicited. We have Spalding's handwriting. We have similarities between the accounts. We have no details that actually require them to be aware of a non-existent manuscript. And we have inconsistencies in what is perceived to be the contents of Spalding's missing text. The so-called Roman Story would fit just fine into the name Manuscript Found, and so on. These I think are quite reasonable issues to take, and reasons to suggest that much of what you are trying to use as witnesses are unreliable at best.

Quite frankly, I've already demonstrated that the witness testimony is credible.

1. Witnesses give their statements before 1834 that there is a connection between Spalding and Smith

2. Smith produces a disc. nar. in 1838 that parallels Spalding. You admit the parallels exist, you just want me to conclude they are coincidental. I don't accept that because the witnesses had already established that a connection exists long before Smith wrote his narrative.

3. You have no counter to this except to argue that the parallels are typical and that we should just ignore everything else. But the fact is... and please try to get this.... unless Joseph Smith is telling the truth in 1838, then his made-up disc. nar. does not have to parallel Spalding. The fact that it does--and you admit that--is indeed quite extraordinary.

Which witnesses do we have that we can date postiviely to before 1834? And were they given by those friendly to or opposing the Mormons? The 1838 discovery narrative isn't very similar to Spaldings. I have addressed this. The similarities are forced, superficial, and rely on the kind of comparisons that are generally rejected in literary studies. And no, I don't admit that it is all that extraordinary. I don't think it would be some kind of special coincidence. And I think you are making a lot out of a very little - that once we start looking at the parallels, the argument really loses most of its oomph.

I think that Hurlbut took someone elses comment and developed it.

One thing is clear.... Joseph Smith is not the intended audience.

Then who is?

But Joseph is not the intended audience. Where do you get that notion? Certainly not from the Book of Mormon itself or from the testimony of the witnesses you want to believe otherwise.

It's an interesting notion. Much of the time, when we write, we are actually writing for an intended audience that very much resembles ourselves (which is why people are regularly misunderstood when other read what they have written). So we need to establish who you think the audience was, if Joseph Smith was not a member of that audience.

If you allow even for the "obvious quoting of the Bible" then you are going against eyewitness testimony that the entire thing came from God word for word and was dictated by Joseph Smith. The eyewitnesses do not give you that freedom. Show me where their testimony allows for "obvious quoting of the Bible"?

God can quote the Bible. I have no problems with that.

There can be no King James mistakes in the Book of Mormon because God has no need to plagiarize mistakes made by an apostate King's translators when he's got the correct translation right there in front of him in perfect reformed Egyptian.

Apart from the assumptions that you make about God, I have already provided at least one good reason for this happen.

But then, I don't think you have any experience working with ancient languages or ancient texts, so it might not be so obvious to you.

Let me ask you the same questions I asked Marg:

What kind of translator is God (since you seem to be familiar with the topic)? Is he a word-for-word kind of guy? An idea-for-idea kind of guy? Would God look at the intentions of the author instead of at what the author wrote (since authors can and do make mistakes ....)? Would God stop in the middle of an allusion to another text to inform us what the text was and what the allusion was so that we would be sure to understand what its author intended by it (knowing of course that this would destroy the concept of an allusion in the process, and permanently alter the text)? Tell us exactly what you think a divine translation should look like.

Ben

[_William Schryver]

I've been following this discussion with some interest--mainly to observe (with wonder and awe) the degree of illogic which Roger and Marg employ in their various arguments.

But in reference to Ben's last comments above, I would like to pose a general question: On what basis is the assumption made that "God" was the source of the translation of the Book of Mormon?

I, for one, don't believe that God himself had much, if anything, to do with the translation of the plates of Mormon. My understanding of the economy of God's interactions with men dictates that He most certainly would have delegated that job to others with a more proximate association to the work. In other words, I find it much more plausible that God would have assigned someone like Mormon himself, perhaps in concert with Moroni, Alma, Nephi and others, to effect the translation process; to work out the best way of expressing the Nephite language in modern idiom; and to ultimately transmit that translation to Joseph Smith through the means employed (Urim & Thummim/seerstone).

Given this assumption, and given the added assumption that even resurrected beings are subject to some variance from whatever we might consider "perfect," I would not be surprised to discover what seem to be anomalies in the translation that was achieved. I also am not surprised in the least that they would have employed Elizabethan-style English as the idiom of choice, for much the same reasons as Ben has articulated in the process of this thread.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Roger -

1) All of the 1833 statements that you are using - including that of John Spalding were part of the group taken (as a group) by Hurlbut. They weren't published until Howe published them in 1834. But they are still a part of the Hurlbut collection.

2) They show marked similarities (let me quote some of Roper's article here to save some time):

In their 1833 statements, two witnesses said that Spalding had frequently read to them from his manuscript. John Spalding said that his brother had read to him "many passages."[26] Henry Lake reported that Spalding "very frequently" read to him. In fact, Lake spent "many hours in hearing him read said writings" and in that way, he asserted, "became well acquainted with its contents."[27] Neither of the two indicated that they had read the manuscript themselves. Six others stated that they had either read the manuscript themselves or both read it and heard it read. All six of these said they had read from the manuscript at least once, but the statements are unclear as to whether they had read the entire manuscript or only parts of it. One witness, Oliver Smith, indicated that he had "read or heard read one hundred pages or more" at least once.[28] All eight indicated that Spalding's manuscript had been brought to their recollection recently by their encounter with the Book of Mormon. Six of the witnesses said that they had "read" the Book of Mormon; however, the statements are unclear as to whether this meant that they had read the entire Book of Mormon or only parts of it. In addition to those who claimed to have read the Book of Mormon, John Miller affirmed that he had "examined" the Book of Mormon,[29] while another said he had only "partially examined" it.[30] Again, the nature and quality of the examination is unspecified.

Spalding's former neighbors described some of the general features of his unpublished narrative as they said they remembered them. John Spalding said that his brother endeavored in his manuscript "to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews, or the lost tribes."[31] According to Martha Spalding, "He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question."[32] Henry Lake claimed that "this book represented the American Indians as the descendants of the lost tribes."[33] Aaron Wright spoke of "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 descendants."[34] They also remembered that the people in Spalding's tale had traveled from the Old World to America. "It gave," remembered John Spalding, "a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till they arrived in America."[35] According to Martha Spalding, "They were officers of the company which first came off from Jerusalem. He gave a particular account of their journey by land and sea, till they arrived in America."[36] Henry Lake said that the story "gave an account of their leaving Jerusalem."[37] "He brought them off from Jerusalem," said John Miller, "under their leaders; detailing their travels by land and water."[38] Aaron Wright recalled that Spalding "traced their journey from Jerusalem to America."[39] Oliver Smith remembered that Spalding "said he intended to trace their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till their arrival in America."[40]

The neighbors recalled that Spalding's novel purported to describe how its leading characters came to be established in the Americas after their journey. According to John Spalding, "It was a historical romance of the first settlers of America."[41] Martha Spalding remembered the manuscript as "a historical novel founded upon the first settlers of America."[42] John Miller said that "it purported to be the history of the first settlement of America."[43] Aaron Wright claimed that the characters in Spalding's novel "were the first settlers of America."[44] It was "a historical novel, founded upon the first settlers of this country," said Oliver Smith.[45] Artemus Cunningham remembered Spalding's tale as a "romantic history of the first settlement of this country."[46] Various customs and elements of their culture were also detailed and described. One neighbor recalled that there were "humorous passages" in "Manuscript Found."[47]

In Spalding's tale the migrants divided into two groups. John Spalding said that, having arrived in the New World, "they afterwards had quarrels and contentions, and separated into two distinct nations, one of which he denominated Nephites and the other Lamanites."[48] Martha Spalding explained that "disputes arose between the chiefs, which caused them to separate into different lands, one of which was called Lamanites and the other Nephites."[49] John and Martha Spalding remembered that wars and contentions were also a significant part of the story. "Cruel and bloody wars ensued, in which great multitudes were slain."[50] The New World people in Spalding's tale were "enlightened and warlike."[51] According to Henry Lake, "their contentions and wars . . . were many and great."[52] Others reported that Spalding had told them that he intended, through his story, to provide an explanation for many of the ruins and mounds common to the region.[53]

In addition to the general features of the Spalding narrative mentioned above, witnesses also said they remembered specific names and phrases from Spalding's story, which they claimed, were identical to those found in the Book of Mormon. Of the eight former neighbors providing statements, five (John and Martha Spalding, John Miller, Oliver Smith, Artemus Cunningham) mention the name Nephi, and four (John and Martha Spalding, John Miller, Oliver Smith) the name Lehi.[54] Two of them (John and Martha Spalding) remembered that the terms Nephites and Lamanites had been used to designate the opposing groups.[55] One neighbor (Henry Lake) said he remembered the name Laban, and another (John Miller) said he remembered the names Moroni and Zarahemla.[56] Three of the witnesses said they remembered the phrase And it came to pass or now it came to pass.[57] One said that he remembered the phrase I Nephi.[58] Some also recalled that the tale was written in an "old" or "old obsolete style" and that the narrative of the story was the same as that found in the Book of Mormon except for the religious elements.[59]

Now lets review. These numerous accounts all talk about reading or beign read to - to the point that they were (well) acquainted with the contents. We have a journey "by land and sea" to America. A romantic novel of the colonization of America. A separation into two groups, with wars and contentions, and so on. Should I continue? All of these witnesses statements were gathered by Hurlbut. All of them contain these similarities. By your own standards, this is far to great a coincidence to actually be by chance, and they were obviously plagiarising some account.

3) On the issue of lying, it is a rather difficult word to use in this context. After all, lying has nothing to do with whether or not you are saying something factually accurate - merely with whether or not you believe that you are saying something factually accurate or not.

The classic example is the boy who in his rush to get on the bus leaves his homework on the kitchen table. When he gets to school he tells his teacher that his dog ate it. Little does he know that his dog, smelling the bacon grease dripped on the homework has in fact already eaten it. Only, because he believes that he is telling a falsehood, he is in fact lying when he tells his teacher that his dog ate his homework - even though he is telling something that is factually accurate.

Usually we believe true things, and disbelieve false things, but in any given instance, it is purely accidental that this is so. I don't like to talk about whether witnesses were lying because we have no way of asserting their personal beliefs. We can only talk about whether or not we believe they are representing factually accurate positions or not.

[_AlmaBound]

Would God look at the intentions of the author instead of at what the author wrote (since authors can and do make mistakes ....)? Would God stop in the middle of an allusion to another text to inform us what the text was and what the allusion was so that we would be sure to understand what its author intended by it (knowing of course that this would destroy the concept of an allusion in the process, and permanently alter the text)?

Personally I think there may have been some confusion at times during the process:

Helaman 2:13 And behold, in the end of this book ye shall see that this Gadianton did prove the overthrow, yea, almost the entire destruction of the people of Nephi.

14 Behold I do not mean the end of the book of Helaman, but I mean the end of the book of Nephi, from which I have taken all the account which I have written.

Alma 10:5 Nevertheless, after all this, I never have known much of the ways of the Lord, and his mysteries and marvelous power. I said I never had known much of these things; but behold, I mistake, for I have seen much of his mysteries and his marvelous power; yea, even in the preservation of the lives of this people.

I agree with you, though, that it is through examination of the text that can assist with determining the translation process and can be helpful in determining which parts were a "storytale" narrative and which parts were borrowed from other sources (i.e. the KJV), along with portions filled in at a later time in the coming forth of the book.

[_AlmaBound]

Would God look at the intentions of the author instead of at what the author wrote...

I'm interested in your take on who the amanuensis was for Amulek and Alma in these two passages:

Alma 11:46 Now, when Amulek had finished these words the people began again to be astonished, and also Zeezrom began to tremble. And thus ended the words of Amulek, or this is all that I have written.

And the very next line (taking into account the current chapter/verse style):

Alma 12:1 Now Alma, seeing that the words of Amulek had silenced Zeezrom, for he beheld that Amulek had caught him in his lying and deceiving to destroy him, and seeing that he began to tremble under a consciousness of his guilt, he opened his mouth and began to speak unto him, and to establish the words of Amulek, and to explain things beyond, or to unfold the scriptures beyond that which Amulek had done.

Who wrote what those two guys said here? Or three, if you count Zeezrom in the previous passages. Who was the scribe?


.

[_William Schryver]

Would God look at the intentions of the author instead of at what the author wrote...

I'm interested in your take on who the amanuensis was for Amulek and Alma in these two passages:

Alma 11:46 Now, when Amulek had finished these words the people began again to be astonished, and also Zeezrom began to tremble. And thus ended the words of Amulek, or this is all that I have written.

And the very next line (taking into account the current chapter/verse style):

Alma 12:1 Now Alma, seeing that the words of Amulek had silenced Zeezrom, for he beheld that Amulek had caught him in his lying and deceiving to destroy him, and seeing that he began to tremble under a consciousness of his guilt, he opened his mouth and began to speak unto him, and to establish the words of Amulek, and to explain things beyond, or to unfold the scriptures beyond that which Amulek had done.

Who wrote what those two guys said here? Or three, if you count Zeezrom in the previous passages.


.

Of course, if you mean who authored the account we currently have, the answer is Mormon. If your question concerns who wrote down the account of Alma and Amulek speaking to the people of Ammonihah, we have no way of knowing, do we? We assume that they (as did many ancient cultures) employed scribes to record their words on occasions such as this (see the account of King Benjamin's speech for a relevant example from the Book of Mormon itself), and that Alma's history was created from these contemporary records.

[_AlmaBound]

If your question concerns who wrote down the account of Alma and Amulek speaking to the people of Ammonihah, we have no way of knowing, do we?

We don't know, to be sure. However, I think making an assessment of who it may have been based on the text that we have available is certainly worthwhile, considering Benjamin's statement that we should consider the text.

What I find interesting are the words "this is all that I have written" at the conclusion of Alma 11:46.

An anonymous scribe would not be the determinate of what he would write. "This is all that I have written" would be by direction, as I understand it, and not as it appears here, in which the scribe seems to have stopped of his own accord.

It may very well be that the scribe was told to stop writing at that juncture, but sticking to an analysis of the text itself, the evidence seems to suggest that the scribe simply stopped writing, with no guidance.

From that point of view, it is the pronoun "I" that is most interesting to me.