Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Ben: Thanks for your insights, as well.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Finally, the Jocker's study doesn't and can't speak to quantitative differences in style of writing, "purple prose"
vs. rhythmical and monotone for example.
...

Using the two computerized methodologies explained in the Stanford team's 2008 report,
I do not believe that anybody could "speak to quantitative differences in style of writing"
in the two texts. Different methodologies would have to be employed, in order to examine
writing "styles" (as opposed to writing "word-prints").

Perhaps such studies will be made in the future -- but there will be an obvious problem:
that 70% of the Book of Mormon text does NOT demonstrate the writing style found in
Spalding's "Roman story." In the approximate 30% that is comparable to Spalding's
style, the Book of Mormon text is still overlaid with so much repetitive "King James" English
as to make extended comparisons difficult.

The Stanford team would have done better to have gone after Rigdon first -- and allowed
their Spalding "word-print" reporting languish in benign neglect for a few years. By their
examining Rigdon, first of all, a wider range of published writings could have been
investigated than simply concentrating on the Book of Mormon text.

Had the researchers first of all established some computerized methodologies that LDS
scholars independently verified, then those "word-printing" research tools could have
been used to identify Rigdon's "voice" in the early LDS newspaper articles, the 1835
"Lectures on Faith," the 1824 "First Epistle of Peter," etc.

Only after LDS scholars concurred that the Stanford team had developed reliable word-printing
methods, could the team members turn their efforts to a productive examination of the Book of Mormon.

It is too late to go back to the beginning, and re-invent the methodology. But the search
for Rigdon's "voice" could still be conducted by other investigators, in other studies.

The eventual identification of lengthy sections of the Book of Mormon exhibiting Rigdon's "voice"
is a project that can be carried out more or less aside from the question of "style." So
far as we know, Rigdon's "style" was similar to that of the speakers/narrators in the
Book of Mormon --- so stylistic differences need not distract from the more important
examination of "non-contextual" word use (which generally determines "word-prints).

I still have hope that this investigation of the Book of Mormon text can be carried out, using methods
approved of by the LDS experts -- and thus produce a "map" of early Mormons' "voices"
in the Book of Mormon (Rigdon, Cowdery, Pratt and possibly Smith).

Once that map is available, we might do better to search its blank spots for Spalding's
"style" and "voice," than we would do by examining the entire Book of Mormon text.

UD

[_Roger]

mikwut:

I haven't had time to read the most recent posts on this thread and my time is very limited today, but I can respond to this:

Roger,

I have been listening to your oft repeated coincidence of the Spalding Roman Story not being public in 1838. I am missing the significance. Can you elaborate on the significance of that?

I almost wonder if you are serious or if you're being sarcastic? You yourself call it "oft repeated" and then you want me to eleborate more? Did you read my last post? I really don't know how to say it any better and I really hesitate to simply to restate something I've already stated more than once.

If the Conn. witnesses and Howe's book are already known even by the "conspirators" themselves are your suggesting that J. Smith's ridiculous idea to continue to plagarize a text in the face of being caught is somehow evidence?

I am saying that the evidence is the similarities that nearly everyone can see between a Spalding text and a Smith text and based on that one should then ask why are there similarities in a text written by Smith in 1838 and Spalding in 1811?

Generally LDS apologists chalk it up to coincidence. I would say that might be a reasonable answer IF the two texts would have been written by Joseph Smith and some obscure writer somewhere, but that is not the case.

How according to your theory did J.S. or S.R. ever get the Roman Story to derive the significant parallels you find so significant?

That, of course, is the next logical question in the sequence.

That it had been preserved in a trunk and then kept with Hurlbut and then Howe and never been seen by Smith isn't significant for your theory?

regards, mikwut

Of course it is! Did you not see my earlier post in which I posed the question to S-R critics whether they wanted to argue that Smith colluded with Hurlbut and Howe? I certainly don't think so, but that is one possibility. If I recall correctly there is even speculation that Hurlbut may have sold the ms to Smith!

That is not my position however. You must not have fully read my last post otherwise you would know that I suggest something close to Dale's option # 6 occured.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

Generally LDS apologists chalk it up to coincidence. I would say that might be a reasonable answer IF the two texts would have been written by Joseph Smith and some obscure writer somewhere, but that is not the case.

But Spalding IS an obscure writer somewhere.

[_marg]

"near the west bank" isn't terribly common (by that, I mean I can easily identify a few dozen 19th century instances), but similar phrases like "on the west bank" and the like can be counted in the thousands in 19th century literature.

You have repeatedly made this argument...that it would be highly probable to find parallels to any particular book if one searched through enough books. And that is true, however that is NOT the situation in this case. The Spalding book was not searched for in order to prove plagiarism. The first time, it was ever publically suggested that the Book of Mormon was a plagiarized book was by the friend of the deceased writer Spalding. At a public reading of the recently published Book of Mormon Mr. N. King noted at the time publically and walked out that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from Spalding. At this point in time, no Spalding manuscript was available, nor published for anyone to check out the accusation. So Spalding and his work was from the outset not a random choice, nor searched for in published words, from the beginning despite no Spalding manuscript in existence...an accusation had been made of plagiarism by a disinterested party and the Book of Mormon was a suspect plagiarized book taken from an unpublished writer of which there was evidence Spalding had completed one manuscript, taken it to the printers to be published but unable to do so due to lack of finances.

Later additional evidence was gathered which further supported this plagiarizing accusation.

The particular parallel which Roger pointed out in the O.P, between Spalding's Roman story explanation that the author's story was a translation of found ancient writing in a buried stone box and then Smith's account which is strikingly similar of finding ancient plates, supports the very first person Mr. N. King, who made the public accusation of plagiarism at a time when no Spalding manuscripts were available to prove it. It supports his accusation because if there was plagiarism, one would expect to find striking similarities. Now years later, if memory serves me which it probably won't about 1880 the Spalding Roman story is found. And sure that one parallel could be a coincidence but then when there are more parallels in themes, phrases between a known Spalding manuscript and the Book of Mormon ..that evidence serves to add further support to the hypothesis of plagiarism.

While the Roman story is evidence that a similar Spalding story to the Book of Mormon exists which is sufficiently dissimilar and not the source of plagiarism for the Book of Mormon..there is evidence by disinterested parties' statements that the Roman Story shown later to them, by Hurlbut was not the one they had remembered as being most similar to the Book of Mormon.

The findings of the Spalding Roman story back in 1830 +, didn't help Spalding theorists, Spalding witnesses or Hurlbut to support their claim that the Book of Mormon had been plagiarized. It did the opposite. Because of some similarities but more disimilarities , it called into question witnesses' memories. It is no wonder the Spalding Roman story was lost, there was no motivation to keep it to prove plagiarism.

When Smith wrote his account (according to Roger, in 1838), of finding the ancient plates in a stone box and translating them, it is likely he was never shown the Spalding Roman story Hurlbut had obtained in his quest to get a Spalding manuscript to prove plagiarism. Hurlbut and Howe would have appreciated that The Roman story wouldn't prove plagiarism, there was no direct quoting. As far as the parallel Roger points out in the O.P between Smith's account of finding plates and the theme in the Roman story being strikingly similar, that wasn't significant to Hurlbut because at the time he was unaware of Smith's account made later in 1838. It is reasonable to assume that if if Spalding did have another similar story in the works hoping to be eventually published he may have used the same opening theme of "how the ancient works came to be published in modern times by the current author".

One parallel on its own, or finding a parallel if one searches through 1,000's or millions of books is not likely to be significant evidence of plagiarism. But in this case there is other evidentiary data to consider which increases the probabity such that the data warrants the conclusion of plagiarism. This includes the first accusation of plagiarism by Mr. King and the surrounding data involved with that, the collected Spalding witness statements by Hurlbut, the fact that Smith likely wasn't even aware of the existence of Spalding's Roman story... so when lots of the relevant data is evaluated, it no longer is just a mere coincidence that there is striking similarity in that particular parallel brought up by Roger in the O.P. With all the data considered and the big picture looked at, there is good reason to believe that the striking parallel is further evidentiary evidence supporting the hypothesis of plagiarism of a Spalding manuscript, not the Roman one but another.

edit: (sorry for the repetitions but I don't feel like editing further and I have to leave this for most of the day)

[_Uncle Dale]

...
But Spalding IS an obscure writer somewhere.

I think you are misinterpreting the notion of "obscure" in this authorship context.

1. Allow me to give an example of "obscure."

Let's say that Mr. Jonathan Doe of Podunk, Iowa, in 1826 wrote an unpublished
poem which essentially duplicated the Lehi vision (or Joseph Smith, Sr. dream) from
the Book of Mormon. We might find that "coincidence" remarkable, but still "obscure."

2. Now let's add another element to our example.

Let's say that several of Mr. Doe's old friends and family members made out
affidavits or statements in 1833, revealing that their hearing 1st Nephi being
read by Mormon missionaries reminded them very much of old Jonathan's
poetry -- but those statements were lost and forgotten. That is still "obscure."

3. Finally, let's add one more element to our example.

Let's say that in 1833-34 newspaper reports identified Mr. Doe's poem as
the likely basis for the character of Lehi in the Book of Mormon and that the
first, and arguably most vicious "attack" book on the Mormon people, was
written, printed and subsequently referenced innumerable times, based
upon the charge that Mr. Doe's writings somehow ended up in the LDS book.

THAT is not "obscure."

How does my example relate to the discussion at hand?

It may be that Spalding's writings had absolutely nothing to do with the
composition of the text of the Book of Mormon. But the fact that those
preserved writings contain thematic and phraseology parallels with the
LDS book cannot be divorced from the fact that Spalding himself was
singled out at a very early date as a likely, unintentional contributor.

In other words, modern Mormons can say that what remains of Spalding's
writings cannot be proved to form a basis for their sacred book. And
modern Mormons can say that what Spalding's old associates had to
say about him cannot be proved to form a basis for the Nephite record;
but they cannot honestly say that the preserved writings are in no way
related to the early claims for plagiarism. Why? Because Spalding is
NOT "obscure," in the context of this longstanding authorship controversy.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...
You have repeatedly made this argument...that it would be highly probable to find parallels to any particular
book if one searched through enough books. And that is true, however that is NOT the situation in this case.
The Spalding book was not searched for in order to prove plagiarism.
...

Bear with me while I attempt to provide yet another analogy.

Let's say that my grandfather owned a unique horse -- one with an orange and gray coat --
but that horse was forgotten long ago.

Today I rummage through my old neighbor's photo collection and discover a picture of
a very similar horse. He denies that the horse in the picture could possibly be the one
my grandfather owned -- that my grandfather's horse must have died at least a few
months before the second horse was born.

I did not search out my neighbor's photo, in order to prove that he had stolen my
grandfather's unusual horse. I only discover that the neighbor had a reputation for
stealing horses AFTER I see the photo.

Further inquiry proves that the picture was taken well after my grandfather's
horse died. There are substantial differences between the two somewhat similar
horses. So, even if my neighbor was once a horse thief, he obviously did not take a
photo of my grandfather's unique animal.

When I attempt to investigate whether the horse in the photo may be the OFFSPRING
of my grandfather's old horse, my neighbor refuses to cooperate with me, and
accuses me of making up lies, based upon the premise that I'd heard rumors of
his horse-thievery and knew in advance of his photos, and thus I must be trying
to pin a crime upon him -- based upon my prejudice.

But, the fact remains, that until I saw his photo, I had absolutely no reason to
suspect him of having stolen my grandfather's horse, nor of illegally possessing
the offspring of that stolen horse.

Because of the neighbor's accusations, I am now distrusted by others, as having
"searched out" some old horse, similar to the one in the photo, in order to make
a wicked comparison and thus injure an innocent man.

Absent some proof of the fact, how might I convince you (or anybody else)
that I did not "search out" examples of unusual horses, in order to falsely
suspect my neighbor's criminal possession of his own orange and gray animal?

UD

[_karl61]

Uncle dale: can you post those words that are found in the manuscript and the Book of Mormon and not in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.

[_Uncle Dale]

Uncle dale: can you post those words that are found in the manuscript and the Book of Mormon and not in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.

OK --


http://www.solomonspalding.com/bomstudies/part1.htm


UD

[_karl61]

Thanks Uncle Dale: from some of those words I found something on the internet I was looking for:

"Broadhurst has also identified 37 words that are found in Manuscript Story and in the Book of Mormon but not the King James Bible, the Apocrypha, the writings of Josephus or in Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews. They are: abyss, attitude, burthen, burthens, clasped, crisis, crossing, defiance, depravity, dispelled, dormant, dragged, encircle, encircled, energies, explaining, ferocious, glut, gushing, hemmed, impeded, listened, manifesting, massacred, monster, movements, plans, pleasingly, puffing, regulations, shrink, spurn, steadfastly, tumbling, waving, worried, wrestling"