Jockers et al. (2008) study. What more is needed? (S/R)

[_Jersey Girl]

For the time being, you need to either subscribe to the journal or do a one-time pay per view deal that costs $28.00. I noticed on the pinned thread (in this forum) that Uncle Dale mentioned pirated copies online.

How the hell am I supposed to leave the Church if Oxford won't provide the smoking gun????

Like Oxford really needs my money.

Lamanite

bad form Oxford.

It looks to me as if Oxford journals would be more than happy to supply you with a "smoking gun"...for a price, Lamanite.

I don't know how much of a smoking gun it will be without a good narrative to support it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't understand the fetish some have here of objecting to references. I really don't.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with directing people to sustained treatments of questions that they've raised.

And the references that I supplied to you are even on line! For free! At most a few painless clicks away! One of them even right here on this very message board!

If that's problematic for you, I can only shake my head in bemusement and wonder. But I won't break easily accessible materials down into necessarily incomplete and inadequate little teeny message board bites when it would cost not a dime and expend less than a calorie of energy to go to them directly.

You asked what it would take to overcome my doubts. I told you. A solid historical case. If you want to claim that that's a non-answer, doing so is your prerogative, of course. But your response makes not even the slightest sense to me.

[_Jersey Girl]

Well, I read Roper, (all 134 pages )…

Roper shifted the goal posts somewhat in conceding that while Rigdon had been in Pittsburgh at the right time, there was no non-anecdotal evidence of Rigdon being in a position to copy Spaulding’s manuscript. Previous to Cowdery et al.’s report of a newspaper placing them both in Pittsburgh at the same time, the standard position, from Rigdon himself, subsequent apologists, Brodie, and Sandra Tanner was that Rigdon had NOT been there at all at that time. At the least Rigdon has been caught in a lie directly related to the topic – although Roper claims that as Rigdon claimed he never LIVED there he was not actually lying. I agree with Roper that the new evidence merely shows opportunity. Vogel agreed with Roper on this point as well. But in spite of Roper glossing over this point – it still changes the premises used by Brodie and Tanner in their assessment of the theory.

I also agree with Roper on his essential dismissal of the eyewitness testimony (EWT). Hurlburt apparently did believe the evidence that he had gathered, given his efforts to uncover the book, but this is not a defence against contamination. EWT is not only vulnerable to deliberate distortion by an interviewer, but also to inadvertent contamination by a person genuinely seeking ‘the truth’ but bringing their biases and desires to the interview. There is no way to assess the reliability of the EWT collected by Hurlburt without independent corroboration. But Hurlburt's apparent belief highlights pre-existing Spaulding rumors.

Roper also points out that the existence of a second manuscript is primarily dependent on EWT. This is fair enough as well. There may or may not be a second manuscript. But a key fact remains – again Roper glosses over this - before Hurlburt’s investigation, some people familiar with Spaulding’s work believed that the Book of Mormon was similar enough to it to suspect plagiarism. Roper himself maintains that witnesses based their statements on vague recollections of Manuscript Story. And Uncle Dale has documented impressive similarities between the existing Spaulding manuscript and the Book of Mormon. Whether Manuscript Story was a draft for a lost Manuscript Found, or was the only manuscript, claims that there is no resemblance to the Book of Mormon are simply not correct.

So 100odd pages of Roper later, I find that Cowdery et al. have still shown that every link or relationship required for the Relief Society theory is possible (even if not independently supported). In effect there is a valid theoretical basis for the Relief Society hypothesis in competition with what is essentially the null hypothesis – Joseph Smith wrote the book alone. Certainly, the ancient Nephite hypothesis does not come close to either of them

Danna,

Based on what you've stated regarding the reading assignment and in light of the recent study that you seem to have read and the method used that you are able to articulate for us (NSC)...

what possible difference does it make if Manuscript Found was lost?

[_Jersey Girl]

I don't understand the fetish some have here of objecting to references. I really don't.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with directing people to sustained treatments of questions that they've raised.

And the references that I supplied to you are even on line! For free! At most a few painless clicks away! One of them even right here on this very message board!

If that's problematic for you, I can only shake my head in bemusement and wonder. But I won't break easily accessible materials down into necessarily incomplete and inadequate little teeny message board bites when it would cost not a dime and expend less than a calorie of energy to go to them directly.

You asked what it would take to overcome my doubts. I told you. A solid historical case. If you want to claim that that's a non-answer, doing so is your prerogative, of course. But your response makes not even the slightest sense to me.

This is a discussion board. No really. Typically, on a discussion board, people engage in discussion. That is to say, in this case, I made inquiry to an individual poster. Said poster failed to answer the questions posed and/or engage in discussion. If you're unwilling to break down the issues into "message board" bites, then why enter the message board discussion?

You're bugging me, Daniel, and I'm not kidding.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You're bugging me, Daniel, and I'm not kidding.

The feeling is very much mutual.

In the conversations in which I participate in real life, it's absolutely routine to say that X published a great discussion of Y, that you really ought to look at A's treatment of B, that you should read Z before commenting on C, and etc.

And especially when, as in this case, the items to which I drew your attention are accessible within seconds, without the necessity of moving from your computer, at absolutely no cost, I don't see the problem.

It's as if someone were to ask me what the Beatitudes say, and I were to hand that person a copy of the New Testament opened to Matthew 5:3-12, and that person were to respond, with indignation, that this was a discussion, not a research project!

Honestly, your attitude makes no sense to me at all.

[_Jason Bourne]

This is a discussion board. No really. Typically, on a discussion board, people engage in discussion. That is to say, in this case, I made inquiry to an individual poster. Said poster failed to answer the questions posed and/or engage in discussion. If you're unwilling to break down the issues into "message board" bites, then why enter the message board discussion?

You're bugging me, Daniel, and I'm not kidding

Honestly it seems to me that there is really nothing wrong with Dr Peterson referring you to resources that help answer the question. Your protestations over this seem rather odd. After all you started another thread where in order to review the material one must pay $28 to do so. He referred you to items that are free for your review. I think if you really think the Criddle position and the Jocker study is the fatal blow to the Book of Mormon authorship issue you really ought to be willing to check out what Dr Peterson refers to.

[_marg]

Dan Vogel's reasons against the Spalding theory are extremely weak. In essence he believe the Book of Mormon witnesses who claimed to have seen an angel but discounts all the Spalding witnesses who had no motivation to lie, nor were they all likely to have been mistaken.

Fawn Brodie's reasoning was as well very poor.

You say they were weak. Can you show us what is weak about them?

I'm quoting myself from another board, a post I wrote a year ago. This addresses problems with Fawn Brodie's argument. With Dan Vogel, essentially what I remember from the thread on this board in the Celestial is his dismissal along the same lines of Brodie of the spaldking witnesses. in my opinion what makes the spalding theory so strong is the credibility of the witnesses. There were many and they certainly all could not have been mistaken. And if honesty is the issue they certainly had no reason to make it up.

Fawn Brodie in appendix B writes: "It can clearly be seen that the affidavits were written by Hurlbut, since the style is the same throughout. It may be noted also
that although five out of the eight had heard Spaulding's story only once, there was a surprising uniformity in the details they remembered after twenty-two years. Six recalled the names Nephi, Lamanite, etc.; six held that the manuscript described the Indians as descendants of the lost ten tribes; four mentioned that the great wars caused the erection of the Indian mounds; and four noted the ancient scriptural style. The very tightness with which Hurlbut here was implementing his theory rouses an immediate suspicion that he did a little judicious prompting. "

Hurlbut interviewed in all close to 100 people, in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Not one person in all that many people ever accused him of misrepresenting their position and thoughts. Most of the statements were not kept or used by Howe for his book because they pretty much confirmed the main statements by close friends, family and associates. But according to Brodie everyone must have been misquided. They all must have confused what they remembered of Spalding’s writing with the Book of Mormon. Not one of them appreciated their confusion and false memories. According to her 5 out of 8 of the affidavits she included in appendix B taken from Howe’s book indicated the witnesses only heard Spalding’s story once.

But let's look at what they wrote. These are from statements obtained by Hurlbut before he went to visit Solomon's widow and obtained a Solomon manuscript (which is currently available) but one which all these witnesses later denied being the one they remembered and were referring to.

Henry Lake (Spalding’s co partner in business in Conneaut, Pa.) said “He very frequently read to me from a manuscript which he was writing, which he entitled The Manuscript Found.

John Miller: (worked for Henry Lake and Spalding) I was soon introduced to the manuscript of Spalding and perused them as often as I had leisure. He had written 2 or 3 books on different subjects, but that which more particularly drew my attention, was on which he called the Manuscript Found. From this he would frequently read some humorous passages to the company present”

Aron Wright: (a magistrate – I don’t currently have the source for the background information regarding him..well respected individual in the community) “When at his [Spalding’s] house one day, he showed and read to me 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 descendents. Upon this subject we had frequent conversations.”

Oliver Smith (Spalding boarded at his house 6 months) “All his [Spalding’s] leisure hours were occupied in writing a historical novel, founded upon the first settlers of this country….During the time he was at my house , I read and heard read one hundred pages or more.

Dr. Nahum Howard “He [Spalding] told me that he was writing a history of that race of people; and afterwards frequently showed me his writing which I read.

Martha Spalding [sister in law] “I have read the Book of Mormon which has brought fresh to my recollection the writings of Solomon Spalding; and I have no manner of doubt that the historical part of it is the same that I read and heard read more than 20 years ago.”

John Spalding: [brother] The book was entitled Manuscript Found of which he read to me many passages.

Brodies does not argue in a scholarly objective manner when she attempts to present a case supportive of her theory but contrary to the actual statements made. Who in the above claims to have heard Spalding story only once? These particular witnesses who were close to Spalding appear to be very familiar with Spalding’s work and had heard and read his work many times, not just once. So her argument for faulty or false memories is rather weak based on this. All witnesses who eventually saw the manuscript Hurlbut showed them after his return from Solomons widow, denied that was the manuscript they had referred to in their affidavits.

[_Jersey Girl]

Jason

Honestly it seems to me that there is really nothing wrong with Dr Peterson referring you to resources that help answer the question. Your protestations over this seem rather odd.

My "protestations" over the responses given by Daniel, Jason, have to do with wanting to engage in discussions with individuals about what the individuals responding think. I did not request a list of resources, I requested individual opinions/thoughts/ideas.

After all you started another thread where in order to review the material one must pay $28 to do so. He referred you to items that are free for your review. I think if you really think the Criddle position and the Jocker study is the fatal blow to the Book of Mormon authorship issue you really ought to be willing to check out what Dr Peterson refers to.

See my above comment.

[_Jersey Girl]

marg,

Refresh my memory if you can. Were the statements collected by Hurlbutt collected before or after Manuscript Story was found? Before, correct?

Wasn't there a statement by Jackson that was given long after MS was found?

[_Danna]

Danna,

Based on what you've stated regarding the reading assignment and in light of the recent study that you seem to have read and the method used that you are able to articulate for us (NSC)...

what possible difference does it make if Manuscript Found was lost?

NONE!
none none none

That's it, what I was saying.
It doesn't matter if Manuscript Found is lost, or never existed and was Manuscript Story all along.
And it doesn't even matter if all the Conneaut witnesses had their memories implanted by aliens.
It doesn't matter whether Fawn Brodie's eye-o-meter was not functioning properly that day and couldn't detect any 'similarities'.
It wouldn't even matter if any of Vogel's non-involved witnesses, did see the translation of Mosiah to Moroni.

Something Spaulding wrote was similar enough to raise suspicions of plagiarism in the Book of Mormon, before Hurlburt got involved. This provides a testable hypothesis.

Jocker's et al. tested that hypothesis and have shown clear and significant similarities between portions of the Book of Mormon and Solomon Spaulding's Manuscript Story.

Zax has demonstrated why the similarities are significant in spite of the relative judgement process.

At this point a reasonable person would conclude that portions of the Book of Mormon have probably been written by the same person who wrote Manuscript Story.

All that is required now is a peer-reviewed replication study by another group, and Spaulding's authorship of portions of the Book of Mormon would have to be accepted by any sane person.