DiscussMormonism.com

The subject of Spaulding authorship just recently sparked my interest and I'm looking at the different angles from which to attack it. I thought there were two relevant manuscripts to this story.

1. The Oberlin College manuscript-Found in Hawaii, part of Painesville Telegraph papers, not considered source material for the Book of Mormon.

2. The "Pittsburg manuscript" that Spaulding gave to his publisher while he was alive, Rigdon stole, reworked with Joseph Smith and OC into the Book of Mormon.

But Spaulding's daughter talks about a manuscript that stayed with her mother for some 20 years after Solomon died. The widow gave it to Doctor Hurlbut and never saw it again. This manuscript she says used the names Nephi, Moroni etc. and was the one her family and friends knew as the source for the Book of Mormon when they heard readings from the Book of Mormon.

So, is it believed the daughter was talking about a 3rd manuscript, or a copy of one of the other 2? And what ever became of the her copy which was given to Hurlbut? If it was really that juicy, wouldn't he have published it?
[/i]

Henry Jacobs wrote:The subject of Spaulding authorship just recently sparked my interest and I'm looking at the different angles from which to attack it. I thought there were two relevant manuscripts to this story.

1. The Oberlin College manuscript-Found in Hawaii, part of Painesville Telegraph papers, not considered source material for the Book of Mormon.

2. The "Pittsburg manuscript" that Spaulding gave to his publisher while he was alive, Rigdon stole, reworked with Joseph Smith and OC into the Book of Mormon.

But Spaulding's daughter talks about a manuscript that stayed with her mother for some 20 years after Solomon died. The widow gave it to Doctor Hurlbut and never saw it again. This manuscript she says used the names Nephi, Moroni etc. and was the one her family and friends knew as the source for the Book of Mormon when they heard readings from the Book of Mormon.

So, is it believed the daughter was talking about a 3rd manuscript, or a copy of one of the other 2? And what ever became of the her copy which was given to Hurlbut? If it was really that juicy, wouldn't he have published it?
[/I]

Who believes that?

Spaulding experts, Uncle Dale, for instance, think there were 2. The "Mansuscript Found" and the "Manuscript Story." Their best argument is that the Oberlin manuscript was not the prototype of the Book of Mormon, and there is still a manuscript out there, still unfound, which became the model.

You should go to Uncle Dale's website for more information. Of course, there isn't much there that raises the important questions of witness reliability. And there are really important questions about that.

charity wrote: Of course, there isn't much there that raises the important questions of witness reliability. And there are really important questions about that.

The irony is just dripping out of this statement.

The witnesses to the Spaulding manuscript were unreliable, yet the witnesses to the gold plates were reliable?

Henry Jacobs wrote:The subject of Spaulding authorship just recently sparked my interest and I'm looking at the different angles from which to attack it. I thought there were two relevant manuscripts to this story.

1. The Oberlin College manuscript-Found in Hawaii, part of Painesville Telegraph papers, not considered source material for the Book of Mormon.

2. The "Pittsburg manuscript" that Spaulding gave to his publisher while he was alive, Rigdon stole, reworked with Joseph Smith and OC into the Book of Mormon.

So far, so good.

But Spaulding's daughter talks about a manuscript that stayed with her mother for some 20 years after Solomon died. The widow gave it to Doctor Hurlbut and never saw it again. This manuscript she says used the names Nephi, Moroni etc. and was the one her family and friends knew as the source for the Book of Mormon when they heard readings from the Book of Mormon.

Yes. This is where Uncle Dale and the Spalding Enigma researchers split--Dale believes she gave Hurlbut both manuscripts; the Spalding Enigma researchers believe she gave them "Manuscript Story" only.

So, is it believed the daughter was talking about a 3rd manuscript, or a copy of one of the other 2?

Well, there existed a third manuscript only insofar as Rigdon made himself a copy of "Manuscript Found" before slipping the original back to the printer's office. But there are only two originals which have--or were (rightfully or wrongfully) purported to have--any connection whatsoever to the Book of Mormon.

And what ever became of the her copy which was given to Hurlbut?

(Assuming you're talking about "Manuscript Found" and not "Manuscript Story,") it depends on who you ask. If you ask Uncle Dale, he'd say Smith and Rigdon bought Hurlbut off and sent him on his way with a nice sum of money. If you ask the Spalding researchers, they'd say it unfortunately got misplaced or otherwise lost in the move from Spalding's original residence to his daughter's and thus was never given to Hurlbut in the first place.

If it was really that juicy, wouldn't he have published it?

Not if he was bought off. Rumor has it he purchased a sweet farm after his final departure from Kirtland. Now, whether the money came from Smith and Rigdon or the committee who had financed his fact-finding mission is anyone's guess.

harmony wrote:

charity wrote: Of course, there isn't much there that raises the important questions of witness reliability. And there are really important questions about that.

The irony is just dripping out of this statement.

The witnesses to the Spaulding manuscript were unreliable, yet the witnesses to the gold plates were reliable?

Harmony, have you examined the witness statements to the Spaulding manuscripts? Years later, when interviewed, after reading about the Book of Mormon, or being told about it (I don't recall any that said they had acutally read the Book of Mormon itself), they recalled that what they had heard someone tell them sounded like the Book of Mormon. Not very much better than "I heard my cousin say that his first grade teacher told him that she thought she had seen something but she couldn't remember it very well after 35 years." If you like that kind of "evidence" you are very naïve and gullible.

On the other hand the witnesses to the gold plates recorded their evidence at the time.

I had a police officer tell me one time that if I were to ever witness any event which might end up in litigation to get a piece of paper, record what I had seen, and put a date and a time on it. Time is very important in testimony. Give a year, 10 years, and any witness loses reliabiility with each clock tick.

Let me tell you about memory. If you see something you think you have a memory of that event locked in. But memory degrades, and when we realize we have forgotten some detail, we fill in with something. If someone asks us a question about the event, the words they use to ask will have an influence on the memory. For instance, if you saw a car collision, if you are asked "How fast were the cars going when they bumped into each other?" you will give a different response than if you are asked "How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?" The question shaped the response.

So if one of the witnesses was being questioned, and they were asked, "Do you remember if the words Nephi and Moroni were used?" They will get a different answer than if they ask, "What names do you remember from what was read to you?"

Whenever we have "witness" testimony, the circumstances of the recording of the testimony is vital to evluating it.

Dr. Shades wrote:

Henry Jacobs wrote:The subject of Spaulding authorship just recently sparked my interest and I'm looking at the different angles from which to attack it. I thought there were two relevant manuscripts to this story.

1. The Oberlin College manuscript-Found in Hawaii, part of Painesville Telegraph papers, not considered source material for the Book of Mormon.

2. The "Pittsburg manuscript" that Spaulding gave to his publisher while he was alive, Rigdon stole, reworked with Joseph Smith and OC into the Book of Mormon.

So far, so good.

But Spaulding's daughter talks about a manuscript that stayed with her mother for some 20 years after Solomon died. The widow gave it to Doctor Hurlbut and never saw it again. This manuscript she says used the names Nephi, Moroni etc. and was the one her family and friends knew as the source for the Book of Mormon when they heard readings from the Book of Mormon.

Yes. This is where Uncle Dale and the Spalding Enigma researchers split--Dale believes she gave Hurlbut both manuscripts; the Spalding Enigma researchers believe she gave them "Manuscript Story" only.

So, is it believed the daughter was talking about a 3rd manuscript, or a copy of one of the other 2?

Well, there existed a third manuscript only insofar as Rigdon made himself a copy of "Manuscript Found" before slipping the original back to the printer's office. But there are only two originals which have--or were (rightfully or wrongfully) purported to have--any connection whatsoever to the Book of Mormon.

And what ever became of the her copy which was given to Hurlbut?

(Assuming you're talking about "Manuscript Found" and not "Manuscript Story,") it depends on who you ask. If you ask Uncle Dale, he'd say Smith and Rigdon bought Hurlbut off and sent him on his way with a nice sum of money. If you ask the Spalding researchers, they'd say it unfortunately got misplaced or otherwise lost in the move from Spalding's original residence to his daughter's and thus was never given to Hurlbut in the first place.

If it was really that juicy, wouldn't he have published it?

Not if he was bought off. Rumor has it he purchased a sweet farm after his final departure from Kirtland. Now, whether the money came from Smith and Rigdon or the committee who had financed his fact-finding mission is anyone's guess.

I suppose nobody knows for certain -- all we have are unreliable reports form many years ago to go on.

Most investigators are convinced that Solomon Spalding wrote at least one pseudo-historical novelette, now on
file in the Oberlin College Library. I'll call this "Story #2," since it is an obvious revision/re-write of an earlier
manuscript and incorporates some partly re-used pages from the earlier draft. I presume Story #1 was discarded.

Rev. Robert Patterson, Sr., a sometimes publisher in Pittsburgh, speaks of seeing a Spalding manuscript written
in biblical style and substantially ready for publication. This may have simply been a more complete, cleaned-up
new draft of Story #2, or it may have been a much different manuscript novel. Nobody knows for certain. Patterson
is also quoted as saying this publishable manuscript was brought back to him by the widow, after Spalding's death,
but it was not published then either. I call this Story #3 -- I have no idea where it ended up.

At this point we enter the realm of speculation. At the end of 1833, D. P. Hurlbut was exhibiting SOMETHING in his
lectures in and around Kirtland, which he claimed was a Spalding manuscript resembling parts of the Book of Mormon.
Perhaps this was merely Story #2 (which Hurlbut did indeed recover in New York and bring back to Ohio), or perhaps
it was Story #3, or perhaps it was a hoax, manufactured by Hurlbut himself. The very unreliable Hurlbut reported
that, on his way back to Ohio from New York, he looked through a Spalding manuscript he had recovered, saw in it
Book of Mormon names, and concluded that it was a hoax perpetrated upon him. Who knows what the truth is?

Getting further into speculation, there were early reports that Sidney Rigdon copied an unpublished Spalding manuscript
in or near Pittsburgh, c. 1813-16. While this is a possibility, no firm evidence has ever surfaced to support this idea. I
think it is not only possible, but likely ---- but those are my personal views, and I cannot prove them.

If there was such a Rigdon copy, perhaps we could call it something like "Story#3-copy" --- if it ever existed. And, if it
did exist, there would have been no reason for it to have been preserved after the Book of Mormon went to press in 1829.

So, what does this all boil down to?

Story #1 -- re-written and discarded
Story #2 -- preserved and now at Oberlin
Story #3 -- reported but never confirmed
Story #3-copy ----- a highly speculative possibility, not yet demonstrated

Uncle Dale

Thanks Uncle Dale. Of course, we don't agree on your assertion that anyone bought Spaulding off and all that, but at least you have burned down one little rumor factory.

charity wrote:Thanks Uncle Dale. Of course, we don't agree on your assertion that anyone bought Spaulding off and all that, but at least you have burned down one little rumor factory.

Yeah, we would hate for people to have thought there was evidence of anything other than the single Spaulding manuscript we have!

Oh, wait...

charity wrote:

Henry Jacobs wrote:The subject of Spaulding authorship just recently sparked my interest and I'm looking at the different angles from which to attack it. I thought there were two relevant manuscripts to this story.

1. The Oberlin College manuscript-Found in Hawaii, part of Painesville Telegraph papers, not considered source material for the Book of Mormon.

2. The "Pittsburg manuscript" that Spaulding gave to his publisher while he was alive, Rigdon stole, reworked with Joseph Smith and OC into the Book of Mormon.

But Spaulding's daughter talks about a manuscript that stayed with her mother for some 20 years after Solomon died. The widow gave it to Doctor Hurlbut and never saw it again. This manuscript she says used the names Nephi, Moroni etc. and was the one her family and friends knew as the source for the Book of Mormon when they heard readings from the Book of Mormon.

So, is it believed the daughter was talking about a 3rd manuscript, or a copy of one of the other 2? And what ever became of the her copy which was given to Hurlbut? If it was really that juicy, wouldn't he have published it?
[/I]

Who believes that?

Spaulding experts, Uncle Dale, for instance, think there were 2. The "Mansuscript Found" and the "Manuscript Story." Their best argument is that the Oberlin manuscript was not the prototype of the Book of Mormon, and there is still a manuscript out there, still unfound, which became the model.

You should go to Uncle Dale's website for more information. Of course, there isn't much there that raises the important questions of witness reliability. And there are really important questions about that.

I have to disagree with you that the best argument is that the Oberlin manuscript was not the prototype of the Book of Mormon, etc. Did you overlook the fact that the manuscript (thought to be "Manuscript Found") was a completed work ready for publishing...when the Oberlin manuscript is an unfinished work? Doesn't that jive with witness accounts? What do you think about that, charity?

Jersey Girl wrote:Doesn't that jive with witness accounts?

'Jibe' vs 'jive'

Sorry. Pet peeve.