On another thread quite a while back Ben wrote:
The discovery narrative issue is rather amusing to me. After all of this talk of data, you are asserting the following:
1) Joseph used an unknown Spalding manuscript to produce his discovery narrative. He did so very early on - incorporating certain individual elements into his own discovery narratives a piece at a time, only pulling all of these individual pieces together, finally, in 1838, when he assumed that it was safe to do so.
I would like to see a listing of official plate discovery accounts in chronological sequence that preceded the 1838 version. Can anyone post this? What is the earliest known account of the plate discovery and then what are the following versions leading up to the 1838 account?
2) We know that this happened because the unknown Spalding Manuscript - despite its obvious differences from the known Spalding Manuscript (the so-called Roman Story) must have reused the same discovery narrative, and, the Joseph Smith's 1838 discovery narrative, which is so obviously similar to the Roman Story, used those elements of the unknown manuscript that were so similar to the Roman Story that we can assume that those elements weren't taken from the Roman Story but from the virtually identical (on these points - but really only these points) unknown manuscript.
This is confusing. Perhaps intentionally so. I don't see anything problematic in what S/R claims here. First we don't know anything happened. But the evidence strongly suggests something happened. The parallels exist. Even Ben admits to that. He simply downplays their importance. But, as we debated up and down on another thread the witness testimony associated Smith with Spalding long before 1838. This adds a lot of weight to the D/N parallels whether Ben wants to admit that or not. But I don't think there's any point in reopening that discussion on this thread. The point here simply being that there is nothing problematic in observing parallels, noting the relevant prior claims and then attempting to fit all that into a broader context of the rest of the data.
3) We can assert this even though we have no text of the unknown manuscript, nor do we actually have any details unique to the unknown manuscript that also cannot be accounted for from either the Book of Mormon or other statements made about it - this even though some of these statements must come either through multiple parties or from previously unknown co-conspirators (for example, Pratt's geography, which just so happens to mimic alleged recollections of those whom Spalding shared his story with).
Again it may be Ben's intention to purposely confuse this issue giving the impression of a disjointed and weak theory, but I'm just not sure I follow the above logic in any event.... so let me break it down....
3) We can assert this even though we have no text of the unknown manuscript,
This is a rather poor criticism, in my opinion. If we had MF we wouldn't even be having this debate. Joseph Smith or Sidney Rigdon or Oliver Cowdery or many other individuals could easily have destroyed MF and it is logical and reasonable to conclude that they would have done exactly that after they had made use of it. At the very least there is no claim here that God whisked MF off to heaven.
nor do we actually have any details unique to the unknown manuscript that also cannot be accounted for from either the Book of Mormon or other statements made about it
Since we don't have MF how would we know any of the details that are "unique to it"? It's a little like demanding from you details unique to the sealed section of the Book of Mormon.
On the other hand, it seems like you are setting up a rather impossible standard here.... let me see if I understand what you want.... you want something unique to MF (which we don't have so I have no idea how we could even begin to satisfy that) that also cannot be found in the Book of Mormon or from other statements made about MF... how realistic is that anyway? It's like stating that we are not going to accept the statement of a witness to a crime (witness A) unless he comes up with some specific detail that he could not have gotten from the papers and that can't also be found in the testimony of 7 other witnesses (witnesses B,C,D,E,F,G,H) to the crime who already gave their testimony. Even if witness A is alive and we can question him, he would most likely have a difficult time coming up with some unique detail about the crime that was not also in the papers or not already stated by the other witnesses.
In this case our witnesses are long dead and you are simply demanding something unnecessary and unrealistic in order to downplay the significance of their testimony.
- this even though some of these statements must come either through multiple parties or from previously unknown co-conspirators (for example, Pratt's geography, which just so happens to mimic alleged recollections of those whom Spalding shared his story with).
I'm not sure I follow this...maybe you could clarify.
This is your data - primarily consisting of a web of assertions, and possibilities - but with no real evidence.
Not really. This is merely a small portion of the overall body of evidence including but not limited to such things as a mail-waiting notice that proves Rigdon lied.
You are forced to consider that the witnesses are absolutely honest
Not really. They were known as upstanding citizens and others testify to that. That's more than can be said for Smith, Cowdery and Rigdon.
because without them, the theory falls apart. You are forced to have this non-extent mansucript, because without it, the theory falls apart. Its quite possible that you could live without the similarities between the unknown mansucript and the 1838 discovery narrative, but, since it fits your method of operations (i.e. parallelomania), why not throw it in the mix.
LOL! Billy Joel has a song called: We didn't start the fire.... It's rather amusing that even though Smith was the guy wrote an account that parallels Spalding, you blame us for throwing it in the mix!
Not only is it reasonable to discount it, it seems quite normal to do so.
Of course it does if one has a testimony that the Book of Mormon is true.
Its rational to discount it.
Now there is where you are simply wrong. It is irrational to simply reject evidence and testimony solely because it does not match your theory. The things you want us to accept as being problematic are not.
I mean, you can't even provide us with a single sentence of this imaginary text.
How about a phrase: "And it came to pass..."
Again, Ben, demanding a sentence from a ms we admittedly don't have is a lot like demanding you to come up with a sentence from the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. It's both impossible and irrelevant.
The only reason why there must have been this imaginary text is that clearly the existing Spalding manuscript doesn't actually have the necessary similarities ...
That is quite incorrect. There are many reasons why MF is not Relief Society. MF was written on foolscap--gee ya think they got that from the newspapers or the Book of Mormon?--RS is not. MF was submitted to a publisher who said he would print it so long as Spalding would write a title page and preface, Relief Society is disjointed, not complete and in no way ready to submit for publication, and then there's what the witnesses state.
The irrational approach is to assume Relief Society is MF in spite of all that.