Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I do recognize some parallels between the two accounts--in fact, I think this is one of the stronger and more interesting points of analogy put forward by Spalding advocates. But I'm with you--it is far, far, far from demonstrating dependence of one story on the other, or another by the same author.

I wonder if it wasn't just employing a known formula for describing an archaeological find...?

Don

Precisely, and if this is among the best points we can analyze, it might demonstrate building on some shaky ground. The same folks who laugh at Book of Mormon ancient parallels may be swallowing larger tales.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
dependence of one story on the other, or another by the same author.
...

The 1838 Smith history (published in the Times & Seasons) essentially
ignores the Book of Mormon story. So, any set of thematic parallels in the two
ancient records discovery stories has no immediate impact upon Book of Mormon authorship.

The thematic (and phraseology) parallels between Spalding and the Smith history
in the Times & Seasons do not end with the Smith "discovery story," however,

Take five minutes and ponder this additional set of Smith/Spalding textual parallels:
http://www.solomonspalding.com/bomstudies/fragment.htm

UD


.

[_DonBradley]

Hi Dale,

These parallels between the writings of Rigdon and Spalding strongly persuade me that the two both wrote in the early 19th Century. But the two aren't verbally parallel enough for me to think they reflect dependence, influence, or related authorship.

Don

[_Roger]

So why are they there at all?

Again, in my opinion, the larger question--once one begins to "recognize some parallels"--is why would we find any parallels between an 1840-something T & S account and an account known to be written by an author that people had already been associating with the Book of Mormon since at least 1833?

[_Roger]

Don wrote:

These parallels between the writings of Rigdon and Spalding strongly persuade me that the two both wrote in the early 19th Century. But the two aren't verbally parallel enough for me to think they reflect dependence, influence, or related authorship.

There are more than one "set" of parallels. You are talking about "Rigdon and Spalding" ...I was asking about the parallels between Smith (in Times & Seasons) and Spalding in his Roman Story.

See Dale's information here: http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap04.htm

If you recognize some parallels between "Rigdon & Spalding" surely can also see some parallels between Spalding and Smith.

[_DonBradley]

So why are they there at all?

Again, in my opinion, the larger question--once one begins to "recognize some parallels"--is why would we find any parallels between an 1840-something T & S account and an account known to be written by an author that people had already been associating with the Book of Mormon since at least 1833?

Common phrases can probably be found between any two pieces of writing of significant length in the same language. This doesn't require any explanation.

However, one would expect to find more commonalities of this sort when examining roughly contemporaneous documents, because they would share the same lexicon.

Don

[_Roger]

Don:

Common phrases can probably be found between any two pieces of writing of significant length in the same language. This doesn't require any explanation.

Sure but that simply doesn't explain (IMHO) the similarities in the accounts of finding the plates and Spalding's account of finding parchment. The parallels are too specific and for the most part in chronological order.

[_DonBradley]

You are talking about "Rigdon and Spalding" ...I was asking about the parallels between Smith (in Times & Seasons) and Spalding in his Roman Story.

Roger, if I had been responding to your question in that post, I'd probably have opened it with "Hi Roger" instead of "Hi Dale." The two are parallel, but definitely not the same.

Regarding the parallels between the artifact-finding narratives, I've suggested that there may be a common cultural formula at work here. The two could draw on a common source or on common ways of describing a find in a "mound." Or, of course, there could be dependence. Or mere coincidence--which does happen in the real world with surprising frequency.

In this case, though, I think there actually is something to be explained (as opposed to vague verbal parallels that are bound to happen).

Don

[_Roger]

Don:

Roger, if I had been responding to your question in that post, I'd probably have opened it with "Hi Roger" instead of "Hi Dale." The two are parallel, but definitely not the same.

My mistake, I missed Dale's post.

Regarding the parallels between the artifact-finding narratives, I've suggested that there may be a common cultural formula at work here. The two could draw on a common source or on common ways of describing a find in a "mound." Or, of course, there could be dependence. Or mere coincidence--which does happen in the real world with surprising frequency.

In this case, though, I think there actually is something to be explained (as opposed to vague verbal parallels that are bound to happen).

Fair enough. And yet how frequent is it when you add in the factor that people had been associating Spalding with the Book of Mormon (which of course is associated with Smith) since 1833?

[_DonBradley]

Fair enough. And yet how frequent is it when you add in the factor that people had been associating Spalding with the Book of Mormon (which of course is associated with Smith) since 1833?

??

I don't see how these assertions would affect the frequency of random coincidences at all.

However, I didn't say I chalk these parallels up to random coincidence (although that is quite possible). Rather, I said I think there is something here that probably needs a (non-random) explanation.

Don