Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

[_Daniel Peterson]

One can argue, as, for example Dan Peterson does, that the parallels aren't really significant. I think you honestly see what I see and you disagree with that. You do, in fact, see "parallels." I agree. But you might also see the same parallels if the accounts in question had been written by Joseph Smith and Frank Jones.

This is the same argument I get from everyone. It isn't unique. It's the "I know it when I see it" argument - and quite frankly - you don't know it. You only think you know it. And what you see is only clear to you because you have so narrowly focused your attention on the few points that you think substantiates your theory that you haven't considered any alternatives - and the truth is, it puts you in a very bad place - precisely because we can use the same arguments to claim a relationship between texts for which there clearly is no relationship, and couldn't have been a relationship. These kinds of parallels can easily (and in reality occur quite regularly) between unrelated texts. They do occur as coincidences. Most people don't really care - because there usually isn't some kind of axe to grind.

In any other venue, your argument would be ludicrous.

If Ben McGuire and I disagree on this, I'm not sure wherein the disagreement consists.

Are there parallels? Sure. There are parallels between any two entities in the universe, if one wants to find them. Both stars and footballs have determinate shape, both have finite dimensions, both come into being at fixable times, both will decay and perish, both are made up of protons and neutrons and electrons and the like, both have specific locations in time and space, both are governed by the laws of physics, both are visible to the human eye, both play significant roles in the lives of many people, both have been written about and sung about, both often affect the way people dress . . . One could go on with this sort of thing forever.

Are the parallels significant? Ben seems not to think so, and I definitely don't.

Where do Ben and I disagree?

[_karl61]

I think the issue is that they come from "Spaulding", not google.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
So why should we care to compare two scenarios that ultimately have nothing to say.

I don't know -- I was hoping you'd sort that part out for me. Either it is worth our time
to study and report on one of the two conclusions -- or it is not.

You seem to be uninterested in the possibility that the Oberlin manuscript (or some
other Spalding fiction) influenced Spalding's old neighbors to concoct the Spalding
authorship claims in the first place. If that is your point of view -- fine. We are left
with one item for discussion ---> that there really are no significant resemblances;
and that the insignificant resemblances cannot be inspected/interpreted in any
reasonable way that would demonstrate a textual dependence.

If we stop for a moment and agree on that point, then the entire discussion seems to
be ended. The only discussion worth our continued attention is whether Smith wrote
the Book of Mormon (as its sole author) from out of his own brain, or by Divine revelation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but THAT appears to be the discussion that Mormons really
want to engage in.

If we want to know about the texts, it is absolutely pointless to talk about comments made
about the texts when in fact, we have the texts to compare.

I disagree. There are different ways to examine the material preserved in the texts -- and
unless we are using basically compatible inspection/reporting methods, we will not be
able to communicate effectively. I cannot simply plop down the two texts into your lap and
say "discussion over -- we both have the same references in front of us and we must therefore
both come to the same conclusions regarding them."

It doesn't matter what methodology we apply to your question because that question cannot give
us the kind of answers that we want.

Well, as I said above, you seem to be focused upon the "insignificant resemblances" aspect of
the topic --- so we can leave aside the question of whether or not it was their exposure to the
Oberlin manuscript that provided the incentive to Spalding's early associates to say and do \
as they did.

Actually, your setting aside that item allows me to retain the conclusion that Spalding wrote more
than one fictional story. My retention of that possibility may prove useful later on.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...that seems a bit contrived to produce the desired parallel.
...

Good points both.
You should have been on my thesis review committee back in 1981.

I really can't go back and change a "published" source, written so long ago.
But if you have the time to type up a dozen or so paragraphs in response
to my original list/comments, then I'd be happy to post your contribution online.

UD

[_marg]

These kinds of parallels can easily (and in reality occur quite regularly) between unrelated texts. They do occur as coincidences. Most people don't really care - because there usually isn't some kind of axe to grind.

You have ignored Roger's point. This is not a situation of the evidence being limited to finding similarities between 2 unrelated texts and then drawing a conclusion from that. If one searches for 2 unrelated books specifically to finding parallels the chances are extremely high one can find that and do so frequently. However that is not what occurred here.

The Spalding manuscript at the time Smith related his story about finding the plates didn't exist, but what did exist was a Spalding theory/hypothesis that a Spalding manuscript had been plagiarized from to write the Book of Mormon. At the time that Smith recounted how he found the plates, no one other than Spalding witnesses who had heard or read Spalding's works and possibly Smith co-conspirators knew what the Spalding manuscript contained. In particular the theme of a "modern person finding ancient buried historical written accounts and translating them for the modern reader" had not been mentioned by Spalding witnesses in their statements when detailing what they knew. So at the beginning and before the Spalding Roman Manuscript was found..parallels in writing were not part of the Spalding hypothesis.

So while there is a high probability of finding 2 books unrelated to one another having similar themes..given the vast numbers of books in existence, one would expect to find a much reduced probability of 2 randomly picked authors having parallels. But if an author plagiarized the work of another author and did so with the expectation that the original work wouldn't be discovered, in other words made no effort to cover up the plagiarism, not only would the probability obviously be high that there would be parallels but the probability would be similarly high to seeking 2 books for the specific purposes of finding books with parallel themes and words.

At no point did Roger ever argue that the theme he mentioned in Spalding's Roman Story being strikingly similar to Smith's own account of finding the plates... was a proof that Spalding's work was plagiarized for the Book of Mormon. However, it most certainly is evidence that plagiarism might have occurred especially when there is other evidence to support this hypothesis.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Dale writes:

You seem to be uninterested in the possibility that the Oberlin manuscript (or some other Spalding fiction) influenced Spalding's old neighbors to concoct the Spalding authorship claims in the first place. If that is your point of view -- fine. We are left with one item for discussion ---> that there really are no significant resemblances; and that the insignificant resemblances cannot be inspected/interpreted in any reasonable way that would demonstrate a textual dependence.

And that is a textual question. One of the problems with dealing with Spalding's old neighbors has to do with motivations. Why was Spalding's manuscript connected to the Book of Mormon in the first place? And is it significantly different from your reasons for attempting to connect Spalding's manuscript to the Book of Mormon? At any rate, we don't need to rely on them - their witness is only useful to answer certain questions - and the relationship between a Spalding manuscript and the Book of Mormon isn't one of those questions.

If we stop for a moment and agree on that point, then the entire discussion seems to be ended. The only discussion worth our continued attention is whether Smith wrote the Book of Mormon (as its sole author) from out of his own brain, or by Divine revelation.

Not at all Dale. What you (and others) simply need to do is to get away from the argument of "I know it when I see it" and instead turn to accepted methods of inquiry for this kind of discussion. If there are genuine parallels indicating literary reliance, then in fact, it ought to be demonstratable using real methods and not simply list of "convincing" parallels. Once the process used is legitmate, then we can look at the conclusions - but as long as the process - the methodology is either flawed or non-existent, we won't be able to get past that point.

I disagree. There are different ways to examine the material preserved in the texts -- and unless we are using basically compatible inspection/reporting methods, we will not be able to communicate effectively. I cannot simply plop down the two texts into your lap and say "discussion over -- we both have the same references in front of us and we must therefore both come to the same conclusions regarding them."

However, if we start with an accepted methodology, it would go a long ways, wouldn't it? The issue is not unique to the Book of Mormon. There is material out there to draw from.

[Guest]

I suppose the fact that Ben & Dan both conclude that there's really nothing here should intimidate me. I suppose it should really intimidate me when Vogel and Metcalf join in. I'm not a scholar, but I think I can still think. So far--with all due respect--if anyone thinks they have even begun to offer an argument here that casts any doubt on the legitimacy of the Spalding claims--at least as I understand them so far--then I might be able to interest you in some real estate.

You can claim that you've dealt with this a zillion times and it makes little difference to me until I actually see whatever it is you think destroys the Spalding claims. The fact is Dale is not the first person to see parallels here. He's probably the only person to stick it out for so long in the face of remarkable opposition, but the fact remains that people were making a Spalding-Rigdon connection since very nerly the beginning of Mormonism.

Now Dan, you can minimize the similarities in general terms all you want and it does nothing to convince me that I don't see what I think I see. Of course you probably don't care about that. You probably would prefer to simply give the casual onlooker the impression that the parallels really aren't that parallel. As far as I am concerned casual onlookers can look into this for themselves and make up their own minds. As for me, I definitely see parallels that require a non-random explanation.

Even Ben admits to "obvious resemblences":

There are obvious resemblances. But what you are putting here is not relevant. The question is whether or not the resemblances are sufficient to make the kind of claims that have been made. I and say that they are not sufficient, and I have over the past several years provided quite a bit of data as to why I hold that belief.

If I am understanding the basic line of discussion so far, in a nutshell Dan rejects a possible Spalding-Smith connection on the basis that the "purported parallels" are insignificant; whereas Ben clearly sees "obvious resemblances" that he apparently rejects due to an alleged lack thereof.

Which, presumably, raises the question of how many examples of parallels must exist before the situation warrants serious consideration? Judgment call I suppose.

Nevertheless, there are certainly a sufficient number to motivate me to continue investigating this.

Additionally--and most importantly--best as I can tell no one has been able to explain why it is that the parallels we are disgussing exist between an account written by Joseph Smith in 1838 and an account written by--not by just any schmo, but by Solomon Spalding in 1811.

When you look at it from the perspective of "Geez the Spalding thing is old news, why are you making an issue of it?" Then you are not addressing my question at all. Frankly, I'm not sure the intellectuals here even get it. Or if they do they are trying their darndest to avoid it.

Once again... the minute you allow for "a carefully chosen matched pair of lists that could be constructed in order to make two very different texts appear almost identical" (Dan) and "obvious resemblances" (Ben) and "some parallels between the two accounts" (Don) then you have to also consider why we should see any "resemblances" at all between something written in 1838 by Joseph Smith and the same author people had already been associating with Smith-Rigdon for at least five years?

None of you may see any signficance in those two "coincidences" converging in 1838 Ohio, but I sure do. And I think any objective observer who has all the information in front of him (or her) will say, you know what? That is indeed pretty amazing.

by the way, In the time I spent typing this, marg posted her comments... thanks marg! Maybe if we keep hammering they'll get it--or at least stop ignoring it.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

marg writes:

You have ignored Roger's point. This is not a situation of the evidence being limited to finding similarities between 2 unrelated texts and then drawing a conclusion from that. If one searches for 2 unrelated books specifically to finding parallels the chances are extremely high one can find that and do so frequently. However that is not what occurred here.

Actually, I am saying that this is exactly what happened here.

In particular the theme of a "modern person finding ancient buried historical written accounts and translating them for the modern reader" had not been mentioned by Spalding witnesses in their statements when detailing what they knew. So at the beginning and before the Spalding Roman Manuscript was found..parallels in writing were not part of the Spalding hypothesis.

I don't think you understand my point. My point is that regardless of which set of parallels you are concerned about, there isn't some kind of uniqueness which justifies in and of itself, claims of plagiarism. And drawing up lists of parallels in this way, isn't itself good evidence of plagiarism. And, if we want to ask the question of whether or not the narratives of Joseph Smith (be it the Book of Mormon or the description of the discovery of the plates) are reliant on Spalding's material, there are accepted methods which can be used to investigate these claims.

So while there is a high probability of finding 2 books unrelated to one another having similar themes..given the vast numbers of books in existence, one would expect to find a much reduced probability of 2 randomly picked authors having parallels. But if an author plagiarized the work of another author and did so with the expectation that the original work wouldn't be discovered, in other words made no effort to cover up the plagiarism, not only would the probability obviously be high that there would be parallels but the probability would be similarly high to seeking 2 books for the specific purposes of finding books with parallel themes and words.

But now you are making all sorts of external assumptions - assumptions, which, by the way, I not only do not accept, but which I believe are not validated by the evidence we have.

At no point did Roger ever argue that the theme he mentioned in Spalding's Roman Story being strikingly similar to Smith's own account of finding the plates... was a proof that Spalding's work was plagiarized for the Book of Mormon. However, it most certainly is evidence that plagiarism might have occurred especially when there is other evidence to support this hypothesis.

But its not evidence. And how do you determine that the "striking" similarities aren't coincidence? Isn't this a circular argument?

Ben M.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
This is not a situation of the evidence being limited to finding similarities between
2 unrelated texts and then drawing a conclusion from that...

This was my basic argument in 1979, when admissions people with the United Methodist Church
asked me to provide a rationale for studying the Spalding documents preserved at Oberlin.

Funding for my two years of graduate level studies, at a division of Ohio Wesleyan University,
near Oberlin, was dependent upon my providing some greater reason justifying such study,
then just my "finding similarities between 2 unrelated texts." So I explained the historical
context of the Spalding-Rigdon Book of Mormon authorship explanation, and asked for the scholarship
funds. They were eventually granted.

From the results of that two-year study at Oberlin, I drafted two reports -- one delivered before
the John Whitmer Historical Association, and the other presented at a meeting of the Mormon
History Association. In each of those papers I said that the phenomenon of textual parallels
in the two texts warranted further study.

Elder Wayne Ham, then Director of the RLDS Temple School, responded and said "unwarranted."
Dr. Lester E. Bush, the noted LDS scholar, responded and said "further study is unwarranted."

So -- I donated my entire Spalding-Rigdon study's notes and research materials to the Marriott
Library in Salt Lake City and tried to forget the matter altogether. But Vernal Holley kept bugging
me to get involved again. So I posted some of my graduate studies reports to the web.

Craig Criddle and his associates read my on-line reports, and concluded that further study of
the texts was indeed warranted.

So, the score is two to two -- with the Methodist scholars and Craig Criddle believing that
this is a viable research topic, and an RLDS and an LDS high level scholar each saying "no."

I could do what Ted Chandler did a few weeks ago -- erase my web-materials and allow
the very few people people still interested in the subject to access them via archive.org

That is what a correspondent PM'd me at the MAD message board: (paraphrased) --
"The REAL discussion is about President Smith, and whether his translation by urim
and thummim is reliable as God's word, or not. You should dump the Spaulding stuff
and get on board with a realistic stance, like 'New Approaches to the Book of Mormon'..."

Maybe so.

How many here agree that the only important matter left to discuss is whether or not
Smith was inspired, in the production of the Book of Mormon text, as its sole author/translator?

UD

[_Roger]

Ben wrote:

My point is that regardless of which set of parallels you are concerned about, there isn't some kind of uniqueness which justifies in and of itself, claims of plagiarism. And drawing up lists of parallels in this way, isn't itself good evidence of plagiarism.

The point you are missing is there were plenty of claims of plagiarism going on between Spalding, Rigdon, Smith & Co. LONG before Dale was born and long before ANYONE (other than Howe & Hurlbut) had anything concrete to even examine and conclude there's "obvious resemblances" there.

The ole' 'Hurlbut coached his witnesses' argument doesn't even fly on this one.