Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Once the process used is legitmate, then we can look at the conclusions
...

Well, one "process" I used in my past studies was to count up the number of words
used in both the Oberlin manuscript and the 1830 Book of Mormon, page-by-page -- and then
assign each page in each source a % of vocabulary overlap, ranging from 0% to 100%.

Charting out the percentages thus arrived at, I found that the greatest constellation
of pages with high percentages of word-count identity occurred in the latter part of
Alma. This was the same part of the Book of Mormon text that I discovered "overlapping" with
the charting out of word-strings common to both texts. Then, as a third indicator that
Alma is unusual, the Stanford researchers utilized two different computerized methods
for "word-print" analysis that also indicated a higher degree of "Spalding voice" in
the latter part of Alma, than elsewhere in the Book of Mormon.

Based upon this phenomenon, of the Alma text demonstrating a higher degree of
resemblance to the Oberlin text, than does the remainder of the Book of Mormon,
can we say that additional study of Book of Mormon/Spalding textual resemblance is warranted?

Whatever answer me might agree upon, I believe that Dr. Criddle and his associates
are going to move on, from Spalding "word-print" occurrences in the Book of Mormon, and try to
establish a consensus-verified methodology of isolating Sidney Rigdon "word-prints"
in 19th century publications and manuscript materials. If that ends up "coming to pass,"
perhaps we can all take a vacation from Spalding for a few years, and concentrate
upon Rigdon instead. After all, he was accused of writing the Book of Mormon long before Spalding's
name was ever mentioned along those lines.

UD

[_Benjamin McGuire]

The fact is Dale is not the first person to see parallels here. He's probably the only person to stick it out for so long in the face of remarkable opposition, but the fact remains that people were making a Spalding-Rigdon connection since very nerly the beginning of Mormonism.

It is easy to see parallels. It is easy to slip into parallelomania. Why do you think the term was coined? It is important in these discussions to engage the data in a responsible way using accepted methods. This isn't rocket science. But, simply giving me a list of parallels and telling me that it is somehow significant because you think it is significant doesn't do anything to answer the underlying concerns. These same kinds of parallels can be demonstrated in just about anything - what makes yours so special that you don't need to deal with the underlying problems that are generally dealt with in these kinds of debates?

And of course, at least a few of those who made the connection between the Book of Mormon and Spalding early also abandoned that view as untenable. The history of the idea is really quite irrelevant. We have texts. It is amazes me to some extent that we have this great unwillingness to use accepted literary critical tools to examine the texts - instead focusing on this idea of parallelomania.

As far as I am concerned casual onlookers can look into this for themselves and make up their own minds. As for me, I definitely see parallels that require a non-random explanation.

And this is the problem - you are presenting your evidence in such a way that leads everyone to your conclusions. Yet, when we look at the texts themselves, and the quality of the evidence, the case is significantly weaker. That's why it isn't valuable to talk about casually observing the text. The casual observation isn't worth a whole lot.

Even Ben admits to "obvious resemblences":

Yes I do. But I also contest the significance of these obvious resemblences. How do you justify their significance? How do you differentiate them from coincidence? Oh, that's right. You know significance when you see it, right?

Which, presumably, raises the question of how many examples of parallels must exist before the situation warrants serious consideration? Judgment call I suppose.

As I said, there is a body of literature devoted to this issue. There are a number of methods I would accept. Try using one - the only problem of course, is that the argument changes considerably when you do.

Additionally--and most importantly--best as I can tell no one has been able to explain why it is that the parallels we are disgussing exist between an account written by Joseph Smith in 1838 and an account written by--not by just any schmo, but by Solomon Spalding in 1811.

Because people have been scrutinizing Spalding's writings for a number of reasons. And really, having read them (as well as the Mormon texts), and not as merely a casual observer, I find the theory pretty weak.

Once again... the minute you allow for "a carefully chosen matched pair of lists that could be constructed in order to make two very different texts appear almost identical" (Dan) and "obvious resemblances" (Ben) and "some parallels between the two accounts" (Don) then you have to also consider why we should see any "resemblances" at all between something written in 1838 by Joseph Smith and the same author people had already been associating with Smith-Rigdon for at least five years?

But this is not a good justification. Because the original observers had more or less the same interest you have. Which is to say that you are simply taking their argument and repackaging it - but it doesn't mean that it was a good argument in the first place, nor does it mean that those first observers were qualified or competent in their observations.

None of you may see any signficance in those two "coincidences" converging in 1838 Ohio, but I sure do. And I think any objective observer who has all the information in front of him (or her) will say, you know what? That is indeed pretty amazing.

And of course, what you see - with your baises and expectations is supposed to be convincing to me, right?

Ben M.

[_Roger]

Dale:

That is what a correspondent PM'd me at the MAD message board: (paraphrased) --
"The REAL discussion is about President Smith, and whether his translation by urim
and thummim is reliable as God's word, or not. You should dump the Spaulding stuff
and get on board with a realistic stance, like 'New Approaches to the Book of Mormon'..."

Maybe so.

How many here agree that the only important matter left to discuss is whether or not
Smith was inspired, in the production of the Book of Mormon text, as its sole author/translator?

I do hope you're kidding. On the other hand, the frustration has been building for... how many decades now?

Dale... I seem to remember reading something about Galileo's work not being warranted either.

[_Uncle Dale]

Dale:

...

Dale... I seem to remember reading something about Galileo's work not being warranted either.

Yeah, but he had Brahe and Copernicus to back him up.

All I've got is Criddle, and the LDS experts have concluded that his
reporting was "rigged for Rigdon."

Perhaps the time has come for me to "throw in the towel" and admit that either
Fawn Brodie or Hugh Nibley were right, and all we need to do is to study their
books and "pray about it."

Would make things much simpler, eh?

UD

[_Roger]

These same kinds of parallels can be demonstrated in just about anything - what makes yours so special that you don't need to deal with the underlying problems that are generally dealt with in these kinds of debates?

How about demonstrating that the same kinds of parallels exist between the Book of Mormon and Green Eggs and Ham? You seem to imply that the types of parallels Dale lists are a common phenomenon.

Well then, if that claim is true, then what you are really saying is, yes indeed, these parallels look very similar.... I (Ben) can't tell you why that is other than to say I (Ben) think it happens all the time. Well if it does, I sure haven't noticed! And if it does, then why would they catch anyone's attention in the first place?

We obviously have a difference of opinion here. The bottom line remains... I see parallels, Dale sees parallels, marg sees parallels, shoot even Don sees parallels & and you see resemblances! Being the odd man out, Dan can only see "purported parallels."

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Dale... I seem to remember reading something about Galileo's work not being warranted either.

Yeah, but he had Brahe and Copernicus to back him up.

All I've got is Criddle, and the LDS experts have concluded that his
reporting was "rigged for Rigdon."

Perhaps the time has come for me to "throw in the towel" and admit that either
Fawn Brodie or Hugh Nibley was right, --- and all we need to do is to study their
books and "pray about it."

Would make things much simpler, eh?

UD

[_karl61]

Uncle Dale - make sure after God takes you home someone still runs your site. I'm still coming out of a black hole but when I'm out I will continue to seek truth and if your road leads to truth then I'm on it, hopefully riding a new Yamaha Sport Bike. I would love to ride around upstate New York (where my dad grew up - Rochester) or even go back to Northern Ohio - where I served a very short! mission. It could rival anything Dan Brown puts out.

[_Roger]

Ben:

And of course, at least a few of those who made the connection between the Book of Mormon and Spalding early also abandoned that view as untenable.

Please tell me who and what their reasons were.

The history of the idea is really quite irrelevant. We have texts. It is amazes me to some extent that we have this great unwillingness to use accepted literary critical tools to examine the texts - instead focusing on this idea of parallelomania.

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the parallels between Matthew and Mark significant?

And this is the problem - you are presenting your evidence in such a way that leads everyone to your conclusions. Yet, when we look at the texts themselves, and the quality of the evidence, the case is significantly weaker.

In the case of Spalding 1811 and Smith 1838, how so?

That's why it isn't valuable to talk about casually observing the text. The casual observation isn't worth a whole lot.

Given that I am not a scholar it appears you might be saying that my observation isn't worth a whole lot on that basis alone?

Even Ben admits to "obvious resemblences":

Yes I do. But I also contest the significance of these obvious resemblences.

Without refering me to something you (or someone else) has already written, can you summarize here and now your reasons for so contesting?

How do you justify their significance? How do you differentiate them from coincidence? Oh, that's right. You know significance when you see it, right?

Actually no, I never stated that. In fact I don't recall ever stating that I know anything.

Additionally--and most importantly--best as I can tell no one has been able to explain why it is that the parallels we are disgussing exist between an account written by Joseph Smith in 1838 and an account written by--not by just any schmo, but by Solomon Spalding in 1811.

Because people have been scrutinizing Spalding's writings for a number of reasons. And really, having read them (as well as the Mormon texts), and not as merely a casual observer, I find the theory pretty weak.

Obviously.

So far this is the first direct attempt at an answer to the why Solomon Spalding and not Joe Schmo question. Forgive me but I'm not reconsidering my position because you find the theory weak or because people have allegedly been "scrutinizing Spalding's writings". You'll have to do better than that. The fact is no one but Hurlbut and Howe (and Smith/Rigdon!) had access to Spalding's Roman story in 1838! Would you like to suggest that Smith and Rigdon colluded with Howe and Hurlbut?

But this is not a good justification. Because the original observers had more or less the same interest you have.

You're saying Smith had an interest in connecting his writings with Spalding? You're missing or ignoring the point.

Which is to say that you are simply taking their argument and repackaging it - but it doesn't mean that it was a good argument in the first place, nor does it mean that those first observers were qualified or competent in their observations.

I'm not repackaging anything. Dale has been arguing this (more politely) for years. The fact is you can't put this in the lap of the witnesses or Hurlbut or Howe--they'd already given & published their testimonies by 1838.

[_Uncle Dale]

...someone still runs your site
...

Whatever I'm able to place on the web is a small part of
the research and reporting that needs to be carried out.

The basic question to be resolved, in the matter of Mormon origins is:
"Did Joseph Smith act alone, or did he have secret co-conspirators?"

If the latter possibility is the real one, then the second question to
be asked is: "When did the Mormon conspiracy end?"

These are questions that practically nobody today is willing to look into.
The consensus opinion among Mormons and non-Mormons is that Smith
acted on his own, to bring forth the Book of Mormon, establish the Church
and produce the "revelations" of the Standard Works. The only question
to be debated is whether or not his productions were divine or human?

Since the whole question of Mormonism has been boiled down to this
simple binary choice, the possibility of conspiracy within Mormonism
has been banned from politically correct conversation and scholarly
dialogue. Since there never was a conspiracy, all the accusations ever
made against the Church to that effect can be forgotten and we can all
rest assured that the "Political Kingdom of God" and other early LDS
tenets are not secretly being carried out today by the top leaders.

That is the situation, plain and simple.

My web-work focuses upon one small corner of that situation -- the
question of whether the Book of Mormon had authors other than
Joseph Smith, Jr. When all is said and done, it really doesn't matter if
such textual contributions came from one (or more) of the "usual suspects;"
Solomon Spalding, Sidney Rigdon or Oliver Cowdery. In that respect my
own web-work is superfluous -- it merely provides on-line access to
some alternative possibilities.

So long as the current consensus agreement of a "Smith alone" paradigm
is maintained among both Mormons and non-Mormons, my own contributions
will remain a historical side-show, whether preserved into the future or not.

Uncle Dale

[_Roger]

Not at all Dale. What you (and others) simply need to do is to get away from the argument of "I know it when I see it" and instead turn to accepted methods of inquiry for this kind of discussion. If there are genuine parallels indicating literary reliance, then in fact, it ought to be demonstratable using real methods and not simply list of "convincing" parallels. Once the process used is legitmate, then we can look at the conclusions - but as long as the process - the methodology is either flawed or non-existent, we won't be able to get past that point.

So when one simply looks at two texts and notices similarities, that is not valid. When Dale notes similarities more methodically that is not valid. When Criddle, Jockers et al do a word print study supporting Dale's findings, that is not valid....

I don't have Craig's computers and knowledge, I don't have Dale's insight and patience, but what I can do is look at their arguments and evidence vs the rhetoric here so far and conclude that at least at this point in the discussion one side has evidence and the other is blowing hot air. Frankly, Don's suggestion of common treasure-finding fables is about the only plausible counter explanation I've seen. But I've also seen no evidence to support the idea.

To say that the parallels don't exist is like denying that rain exists. To say that the parallels are real but that doesn't make any difference because my method of looking at them is wrong doesn't do much for me.

For example, Dale notes that:

Both narrators are struck by a need to determine what is under the slab found on the wilderness elevation. Both quickly locate a lever (perhaps a sturdy branch) and use it to pry up and remove the strange stone away from its age-old resting place. In both cases the stone must have been too heavy or too tightly lodged to have been lifted with the fingers. Both accounts indicate that the heavy stone cover had been put in place by human hands in ancient times and that the narrator is the first person to look under the stone for a long long time.

Now, you either have to argue that Dale is really clever in putting this comment together, or he's right... both accounts actually do hold all those things in common. (and that of course is merely one comment on only one set of parallels)

Best as I can tell, no matter how you break apart the text and analyze it and cross-examine it and compare it with other parallels or whatever---you're still not going to change the fact that the above observations are true.

Going back to Dale's first post, he listed 6 possible answers:

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.

So from the above it would appear that Dale has been down this road before and knew what was coming.

Dan says he takes door # 1. Ben seems to lean toward door # 2. I'd guess William falls into door #3 although he probably denies that any parallels exist too. Don seems to maybe hover around #1 somewhere.

I think #6 is the best explanation--by far; despite all the vociferous intellectual-speak to the contrary. The reason is simple. This is a case in which we have at least two really unusual sets of circumstances converging.

First, comparison of the parallels is slightly unusual. It's enough to make you sit up and take notice. But then when you factor in the similar chronology it gets even more unusual. Spalding walks up a hill, Smith walks up a hill, Spalding sees a rock, Smith sees a rock, Spalding gets a lever, Smith gets a lever, etc, etc. That in itself warrants further investigation.

But when you factor in that the 1811 account was not written by just anyone; rather it was written by Solomon Spalding, that's where it gets really interesting.

The Hurlbut/Howe witnesses could not have known that in five years time Smith would produce an account that strongly resembled a manuscript written by the very guy they were saying had written the original Book of Mormon. In fact how utterly fortunate for them that Smith did that! How unbelievably lucky for them and for future Spalding-Rigdon advocates like Dale that Smith chose to publish an account that would strongly resemble Spalding's! And how bizzare that if Smith was telling the truth about the matter ( ) his account would parallel that of an incomplete 1811 romance!

On the other hand... what if there never were any real plates? What then? How would Smith describe the plate discovery if it never really went down?

Option # 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.

Here's where it gets really interesting.... by coincidence (!) option #6 is exactly what some of the witnesses Hurlbut had interviewed and Howe had published back in 1834 had said is what happened! Geez what a lucky strike! But the problem is NO ONE AT THE TIME--not even Howe--noticed it! It all just sat there for fifty plus years.

Why not? Because of the dissimilarities. Spalding's Roman story was not as close to the Book of Mormon as Hurlbut's witnesses claimed it should be if it were the basis for the Book of Mormon. Howe's conclusion? This manuscript that Hurlbut discovered (the Roman story) was not the basis for the Book of Mormon. Why was that conclusion reached? Because the two documents (Roman story and Book of Mormon) were too dissimilar.

So when modern critics want to go on and on about how unimpressive the parallels are, one has to wonder which parallels they are refering to? When it comes to Smith's plate-discovery account, the parallels are fairly striking, which leads me to conclude that Spalding's MF included a parchment/plate finding account that he didn't alter all that much from the version we have in his Roman story.

The crazy thing is--in spite of and in addition to all this--there are similarities between the Book of Mormon and Spalding's Roman story. Hurlbut, Howe, Rice, Fairchild and LDS apologists notwithstanding. Those similarities may not be as pronounced as the witnesses claimed they should be--but that is simply and rationally accounted for by the concept that Spalding wrote more than one manuscript, which, as I already mentioned, Hurlbut/Howe's witneses had been asserting since at least 1833.

So we see that the evidence in fact does support the hypothesis and we did not arrive at that conclusion by attempting to force data into some pre-ordained theory.

No, instead, people began to notice similarities between the Book of Mormon and a manuscript they had remembered from prior to 1816 shortly after the Book of Mormon was published in 1830. There was no accessible Spalding manuscript at the time they made those accusations. It was this hypothesis that prompted Hurlbut to go looking for a connection. How fortunate that Smith would play right into his hands five years down the road!