Our leaders

[_Dr. Shades]

Spalding didn't write his story in Jacobean English, but even if he had I don't see how a story about a group of 4th-century AD Romans in America would give Rigdon "the idea of creating a religious text to sell."

It didn't. "Manuscript Story," the one about Fourth Century A.D. Romans in America, was merely the rough draft for "Manuscript Found." It's not the one that gave Rigdon any ideas. In fact, it's unlikely that Rigdon ever saw it (Manuscript Story) at all.

Yes. And I think it is telling that those witnesses only "remembered" a second manuscript after learning that the manuscript Spalding's widow turned over to Hurlbut didn't resemble the Book of Mormon very closely at all.

That's not what happened. They remembered Mansucript Found--the second manuscript--long before Hurlbut retrieved Manuscript Story, the first manuscript.

I regard the supposed existence of a second manuscript as nothing more than a convenient fiction, a desperate attempt on their part to save face. I don't believe it ever existed.

They didn't need to save face, since (with one exception, I believe) they didn't ever refer to the first manuscript.

As for marg making no claim whatsoever that Spalding's book was "religious," I think it is a reasonable inference to draw from her statement: "With Spalding's book in Ridgon's hand Rigdon needed others to present a religious book as if it was true history." That is to say, the "religious book" Rigdon hoped to present as true history was none other than Spalding's unpublished manuscript.

No, that's not it at all. Rigdon had Spalding's non-religious book in hand and used the story arc as a framework to craft the Book of Mormon--a religious book.

Isn't that the whole point of the Spalding-Rigdon theory--that Rigdon et al. turned Spalding's manuscript into the Book of Mormon?

Yes, but "turning Spalding's manuscript into the Book of Mormon" consisted of adding a lot of religious material.

[_Nevo]

In fact, it's unlikely that Rigdon ever saw it (Manuscript Story) at all.

Well that's something we agree on.

That's not what happened. They remembered Mansucript Found--the second manuscript--long before Hurlbut retrieved Manuscript Story, the first manuscript.

The original eight witness statements collected between August and September 1833 only mention one historical novel about ancient America. After Hurlbut retrieves the only manuscript he can find on ancient America, the witnesses suddenly remember, "oh yes, there were actually two manuscripts--I remember it clearly now!"

I just find that a bit too convenient.

[_Jersey Girl]

In fact, it's unlikely that Rigdon ever saw it (Manuscript Story) at all.

Well that's something we agree on.

That's not what happened. They remembered Mansucript Found--the second manuscript--long before Hurlbut retrieved Manuscript Story, the first manuscript.

The original eight witness statements collected between August and September 1833 only mention one historical novel about ancient America. After Hurlbut retrieves the only manuscript he can find on ancient America, the witnesses suddenly remember, "oh yes, there were actually two manuscripts--I remember it clearly now!"

I just find that a bit too convenient.

CFR on the bolded portion, Nevo. I'd like to see some quotes from the witnesses that describe the manuscript(s)

[_marg]

Spalding didn't write his story in Jacobean English, but even if he had I don't see how a story about a group of 4th-century AD Romans in America would give Rigdon "the idea of creating a religious text to sell."

It didn't. "Manuscript Story," the one about Fourth Century A.D. Romans in America, was merely the rough draft for "Manuscript Found." It's not the one that gave Rigdon any ideas. In fact, it's unlikely that Rigdon ever saw it (Manuscript Story) at all.

I don't agree Manuscript Story was the rough draft for Manuscript Found. I believe Spalding went back in time to write a fictional story which explained how N. Am. Indians came to America and wrote it in King James english to give it an ancient sound. Neighbours and friends gave Spalding a nick name of "Old come to pass" to account for the frequent phrase in the book he would read to them..of "and it came to pass. The Roman Story which is available doesn't have that phrase and the Roman story which is available is an unfinished work. The story taken to the publishers by Spalding was finished. He may have been planning to later finish off the Roman story which would have taken place timewise later than the one explaining N.Am. Indians coming to America.

Shades if you could respond to nevo on this I'd appreciate it, I don't have access to much material to review and I have limited time.

[_Nevo]

In fact, it's unlikely that Rigdon ever saw it (Manuscript Story) at all.

Well that's something we agree on.

That's not what happened. They remembered Mansucript Found--the second manuscript--long before Hurlbut retrieved Manuscript Story, the first manuscript.

The original eight witness statements collected between August and September 1833 only mention one historical novel about ancient America. After Hurlbut retrieves the only manuscript he can find on ancient America, the witnesses suddenly remember, "oh yes, there were actually two manuscripts--I remember it clearly now!"

I just find that a bit too convenient.

CFR on the bolded portion, Nevo. I'd like to see some quotes from the witnesses that describe the manuscript(s)

You can find the original witness statements here.