Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

[_Roger]

On another thread I wrote to DCP:

I know the Spalding-Rigdon theory is not respected by you, but I wonder if you could give me your take on why there are so many similarities between Joseph Smith's account of finding golden plates and Spalding's account in his Roman story?

see here: http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap04.htm

I would appreciate any explanation you have for this. Thanks.

Dan responded with:

You're right that I find it very, very difficult to take the Spalding-Rigdon at all seriously. And this list of alleged parallels or similarities illustrates part of the reason why:

I really don't mean to be flippant about this, but I don't see the proposed similarities as being all that striking or significant. I truly don't. Now, I understand that the weighing of proposed parallels is, to a degree, a subjective thing, but I, at least, just can't get worked up about these. In fact, several of them seem to me to be straining quite a bit.

I suppose I'd be willing to discuss them on a separate thread, if you would like.

That sounds reasonable. Perhaps when you look at each parallel on an individual basis they may not seem compelling. In my opinion the broader picture does, however. In fact, in all sincerity, the parallels, when taken as a whole and considered in chronological order, make for such a striking resemblance, I truly fail to see how anyone looking at the data objectively can be truly unimpressed. I can't copy everything Dale has posted on the page I'm refering to here, but just as an example:

Spalding says: "on the top of a small mound"
Smith says: "on the west side of this hill not far from the top"

Then Spalding says: "As I was walking"
And Smith follows with: "I arrived there"

Spalding continues: "I happened to tred on a flat stone... exactly horizontal"
Smith continues: "under a stone of considerable size"

Spalding writes: "With the assistance of a lever I raised the stone"
Smith follows with: "I obtained a lever which I got fixed under... the stone and... raised it up"


...now this is just four examples. Dale lists around 25 more (depending on how you look at it.) Even if we only had those four parallels to deal with, in my opinion we would still have some really strange coincidences. The fact is when you consider the larger picture, you have basically the same account told in slightly different words. How can you see no significance here? Why would Joseph Smith's account of finding plates so closely parallel an account written three decades earlier?

[_Uncle Dale]

...Why would Joseph Smith's account of finding plates so closely parallel an account written three decades earlier?

Possible answers (in no particular order of probability).

1. There are no extraordinary textual parallels here -- such seeming resemblances might be
pointed out in any narration of a discovery of ancient American records atop a mound or hill.
Thus, we see "parallels" in the Oct. 1835 Messenger & Advocate account, as well as in
Mr. Ashe's 1806 account of digging in an old mound: http://olivercowdery.com/texts/prst1833.htm#pg087b
Further "parallels" might be pointed out in the account of the discovery of the Kinderhook plates,
of the discovery of J. J. Strang's plates, etc.

2. There are some extraordinary textual parallels, but their number, distribution and sequence in
the two stories fall well within the bounds of pure coincidence. Also, if all the non-parallels evident
in the two stories were added to the resemblances tabulation, the sheer number of instances of
where the two narratives do NOT agree, would totally override the number of textual parallels.

3. There are extraordinary textual parallels in the two accounts; but any member with a strong
testimony of the Book of Mormon will see no significance in that fact. It simply is not important.

4. The parallels exist because Spalding's Roman story was consulted by the Book of Mormon author(s).

5. The parallels exist because Spalding's Roman story was re-written to become the Book of Mormon.

6. The parallels exist because the Book of Mormon borrows narrative/themes/vocabulary from some "lost"
Spalding tale which resembled his Roman story, but was not exactly the same.


My advice to the Doc. -- stick with option #3, as Lester Bush did.

UD

[_Roger]

Dale:

You forgot one:

Nephites could have read Spalding.




Dan has already stated something similar to #1. Perhaps he can at least be persuaded to see the merits of #3.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Nephites could have read Spalding.
...

Not so ridiculous as it might sound at first consideration --- or, at least some alternative
possibility of that sort might be given some thought.

There is a story among the RLDS about a lady who dreamed of Nephites, but had no
idea that her dreams were anything like Book of Mormon stories. Some years later she
encountered RLDS missionaries, read the book, and was instantly converted.

How can we explain such an oddity of "parapsychology?"

Who among us is to say for certain that Solomon Spalding did not have dreams
of Nephites? If he ever wrote something like the Book of Mormon story, it may have been
because both he and Joseph Smith were "tapping into" the same ancient truths.

Not sure the Doc. would place much confidence in that addition to our possibilities though.

UD

[_Daniel Peterson]

Dale, I'm strongly inclined to your #1:

1. There are no extraordinary textual parallels here -- such seeming resemblances might be pointed out in any narration of a discovery of ancient American records atop a mound or hill.

I confess to being a little bit handicapped by the fact that I simply don’t find the proposed even remotely impressive, and can’t see why anybody else does. But Roger appears to be sincere, so I guess I’ll try to take them seriously. (This is going to come across as rather condescending, but It’s rather like being asked to join a sustained discussion about whether Bach was a greater musician than Milli Vanilli: After you’ve laid out what seems to be transparently obvious, what’s left to say?)

I'll try, though, in small bursts, to find ways to express what I simply find intuitively self-evident.

[_Roger]

Dan:

Dale, I'm strongly inclined to your #1:

So far no surprise.

I confess to being a little bit handicapped by the fact that I simply don’t find the proposed even remotely impressive, and can’t see why anybody else does. But Roger appears to be sincere, so I guess I’ll try to take them seriously.

Roger is indeed sincere, Dan. So far you've said nothing to throw any doubt on the scenario. Nor has anyone else that I am aware of. I'm beginning to wonder if that's because they can't... ?

(This is going to come across as rather condescending,

Indeed. The question is whether the condescension is justifed.

but It’s rather like being asked to join a sustained discussion about whether Bach was a greater musician than Milli Vanilli: After you’ve laid out what seems to be transparently obvious, what’s left to say?)

I'll try, though, in small bursts, to find ways to express what I simply find intuitively self-evident.

I've seen nothing of substance that even remotely answers this. Dale has provided the best rationale for rejecting his own thesis, for Pete's sake. PLEASE do not refer me to a link. I do not have unlimited time to devote to this. Please don't inform me of how dreadfully uninformed I am. Please make an attempt in plain English and in your own freshly typed words to rationally explain the similarities I've already listed.

So far all I hear you saying is "I don't see what you see." I can't dispute that, but neither can I accept it as anything of substance. If you're going to stick with that then I can only conclude that the similarities that are striking to any disinterested party taking the time to examine them are inexplicable from a pro-LDS point of view.

[_mikwut]

Roger,

The similarities are there because the mysterious mounds and history that preceded them were of great interest. Authors often write similarities in writing about how such things could have come about. Uncle Dale giving the answer doesn't decrease the poignancy of the answer.

I am more interested in how a Spalding theorist who sees such dramatic similarities as you do isn't inclined to see the rather mundane but evident logic that the Conn. witnesses were brought to their beliefs of the two books (Roman Story and the Book of Mormon) because of the same similarities you point out. You would at least have to grant the point if your pressing your point.

Second, if you hold so tightly to the similarities you have listed mustn't you also accept the drastic difference in style between the two books, Fawn Brodie for example writes, “If on the other hand, Hurlbut was right and there were actually two Spaulding manuscripts, one might reasonably expect stylistic similarities between the Book of Mormon and the extant manuscript, since the latter was full of unmistakable literary mannerisms of the kind that are more easily acquired than shed. Spaulding was heir to all the florid sentiment and grandiose rhetoric of the English Gothic romance. He used all the stereotyped patterns – villainy versus innocent maidenhood, thwarted love, and heroic valor – thickly encrusted with the tradition of the noble savage. The Book of Mormon had but one scant reference to a love affair, and its rhythmical, monotonous style bore no resemblance to the cheap clichés and purple metaphors abounding in the Spaulding story."

I think those are more clear than the similarities you pose. Of note, Jocker's study whose list of words only include the mundane a, an, if, then, there, were, so, his, her, etc... would not illuminate any quantitative differences of style as is so easily recognized between the two books (Book of Mormon and Roman Story).

Dan Vogel clearly made a similar point on this very message board, "the use of similar phraseology in a few chapters of the Book of Mormon is not the same as studying writing style and over-all vocabulary (the same goes for so-called word-print studies). Assuming Rigdon was the redactor, I find it difficult assigning to him the Book of Mormon's bad grammar, Yankee dialect, poorly executed imitation KJV language, over-the-top Bible-like stories, unsystematic and contradictory theology. On the other hand, the style and language of the Book of Mormon compare favorably with Joseph Smith's other scriptural productions. Anyone who doubts Joseph Smith had a powerful command of language should read the letters he dictated in Liberty Jail."

These points aren't to fall on daft ears of the sincere regarding these issues.

my regards, mikwut

[_Daniel Peterson]

Please be patient, Roger.

The simple fact is that I really don't see the proposed parallels as either striking or significant (and I'm not convinced that, as you put it, these are "similarities that are striking to any disinterested party taking the time to examine them"). I might with at least equal justification demand that you explain, to my satisfaction, why you imagine that the supposed parallels are significant. It seems to me that, on one level, one either immediately perceives them as striking or, well, one just doesn't. And that's that. You complain that "So far all I hear you saying is 'I don't see what you see.'" But if I really don't see what you see, that's pretty basic.

It occurs to me that, in order to develop some more or less agreed-upon common ground for deciding which parallels are significant and which aren't, it might conceivably be important to settle upon a specific literary-critical methodology. The method laid out by Michael Fishbane in Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel might be helpful. Or that used by Hays in Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. Or that of Ben Sommer in A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66. How, exactly, do you propose that we evaluate the strength of the parallels proposed between the texts, when we obviously judge it completely differently?

It seems to me, too, that it's very easy to abstract two agenda-driven lists of items from a pair of texts that are, in reality, very, very different, and, by presenting them side by side, consciously or unwittingly exaggerate the supposed similarities between the two documents. (Grant Palmer's absurd effort to link the Moroni story with E. T. A. Hofmann's Der goldne Topf, which was only made worse by Palmer's inaccuracies and his surreptitious re-ordering of the listed elements to make them correspond better, is a spectacular illustration of this error.) Like mikwut, I've always been much more impressed by the differences between Spalding's novel and the Book of Mormon, which I see as fundamental and deep, than by what I've always seen, and continue to see, as truly shallow, cherry-picked "similarities." One thing I would want to do, in this case, would be to quote as many of Spalding's actual words and as many of the Book of Mormon's actual words as possible.

[Guest]

Don't forget this gem from Ben Spackman, posted on Unk's website:

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/parallels.htm

I'd also like to introduce "Exhibit A" of the parallels I find most convincing between the Manuscript Found and the Book of Mormon. This is peripheral to the parallels in the account of finding the plates, and Spaulding's Roman story, but as long as we are comparing authorship and ideas I think this is some interesting stuff to add to the discussion. It comes from pages 26-27 of the reprinted edition. (you can see it here: http://solomonspalding.com/docs/rlds1885.htm)

It depicts a mud-sliding race that is surprisingly similar to the situation where Ammon protects the flocks of the King. Consider for yourself how similar it is to the Book of Mormon:

In making this decent, six young women & five young men by a surprizing dexterity in whirling their bodies as they dcended cleared themselvs from the quagmire—The rest as their turns came plunged in & came out most wofully muded to the great diversion of the Spectators. The incident which excited the most meriment hapned when the last pa[ir] decended. by an unlucky spring to [p. 28] clear himself from the quagmire he brot his body along side of the declevity & roled his whole length into the midst of the quagmire where he lay his whole length in an horizontal position on his back neither heels up or head up, but horizontally—soft & easy—but alas when one unlucky event happens another follows close on the heal.—the fair, plump corpulant Damsel, his affectionate sweetheart came instantly, sliding with great velocity—she saw the woful position of her beloved—she wished him no harm—she raised her feet this bro't the center of gravity directly over the center of his head—here she rested a moment—his head sunk—she sunk after him his heels kicked against the wind like Jeshuran waked fat—but not a word from his lips—but his ideas came in quick succession—though't he, what a disgrace to die here in the mud under the pressure of my sweet heart—however his time for such reflections were short—the tender hearted maid collecting all her agility in one effort dismounted & found herself on dry land i[n—] instant—not a moment to be lost; she seized her lover by one leg & draged him from the mud—a curious figure, extending about six feet six inches on the ground,—all bismeared from head to foot, spiting—puffing, panting & strugling for breath.—Poor man, the whole multitude laughing at thy calamity, shouting, rediculing—none to give thee consolation but thy loving & simpithetic partner in misfortune—

Upon my soul, exclaims droll Tom—Stern formost—that bouncing Lass ought to have the highest prize for draging her ship from the mud—She was cleaning the filth from his face."

And from the Book of Mormon:

And it came to pass that he was set among other servants to watch the flocks of Lamoni, according to the custom of the Lamanites. And after he had been in the service of the king three days, as he was with the Lamanitish servants going forth with their flocks to the place of water, which was called the water of Sebus, and all the Lamanites drive their flocks hither, that they may have water—Therefore, as Ammon and the servants of the king were driving forth their flocks to this place of water, behold, a certain number of the Lamanites, who had been with their flocks to water, stood and scattered the flocks of Ammon and the servants of the king, and they scattered them insomuch that they fled many ways. Now the servants of the king began to murmur, saying: Now the king will slay us, as he has our brethren because their flocks were scattered by the wickedness of these men. And they began to weep exceedingly, saying: Behold, our flocks are scattered already. Now they wept because of the fear of being slain. Now when Ammon saw this his heart was swollen within him with joy; for, said he, I will show forth my power unto these my fellow-servants, or the power which is in me, in restoring these flocks unto the king, that I may win the hearts of these my fellow-servants, that I may lead them to believe in my words. And now, these were the thoughts of Ammon, when he saw the afflictions of those whom he termed to be his brethren.

You'll note that in the first excerpt the word "in" is used 8 times, while in the Book of Mormon it is used 7 times, which is quite similar in terms of frequency. Additionally, the two stories pretty clearly came from the same source, perhaps.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Nice!

Ben McGuire, though. Right?