Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

[_Jersey Girl]

What did I say he was oblivious to, Nevo? Nearly every post above his post has to do with distinquishing MF from MS. That's what I commented on, not his anti-Spalding research.

I don't know how you determined that Wade is "oblivious" to the theory that there were two Spalding manuscripts (although only one is extant). I think Wade is well aware of it.

Nevo,

I can't believe you are trying to play this game with me. Here is what Wade stated:

Am I correct in concluding that everyone here is at least in agreement that the Book of Mormon was not plagarized from the extant Spalding manuscript (call it what you will: "Roman Story" or "Oberline Manuscript" or "Manuscript Found")?

In the above, Wade does not make the distinction between the two manuscripts in question, even though nearly every post above his demonstrates that fact.

There were 2 Spalding manuscripts? Is that right?

Nevo, stop trying to wind the thread into a little ball of yarn with these disingenous replies.

[_Roger]

Wade:

Am I correct in concluding that everyone here is at least in agreement that the Book of Mormon was not plagarized from the extant Spalding manuscript (call it what you will: "Roman Story" or "Oberline Manuscript" or "Manuscript Found")?

It's difficult to get a room full of people to agree on anything. It is possible that the Roman story (or a copy of it) was directly used to produce the Book of Mormon, but I don't think there are many people who would argue that. I sure wouldn't. So the answer is probably "yes."

If so, then I am not sure what value there is in identifying similarities between the extant manuscript and the Book of Mormon,

Good question. Short answer... because the testimony has it that Spalding wrote a similar ms to the Roman story; one that told a similar story but used a Biblical style and went farther back in history. If one can identify similarities between the Roman story and the Book of Mormon, then it lends weight to that testimony.

or the discovery narrative for that matte,

The discovery narrative is a different matter. When people first began connecting Spalding to the Book of Mormon there was no "discovery narrative." Spalding's Roman story was also not accessible until 1833-34. Therefore there was an asserted link between Spalding and Smith well before 1838. The parallels between Smith's 1838 account and Spalding's Roman story are an indication that Smith had access to Spalding's writings, and lend further support to the testimony that had already been given.

except perhaps to underscore the point that the two works may contain similarites even when not plagerized (a point that tends to work against Spalding theories). Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, because the testimony by those who actually heard Spalding read from his manuscript was that MF was similar to the Roman story. It was written by the same author using a similar premise. The parallels between Spalding's Roman story and Smith's plate-discovery narrative supports the witnesses when they claim there was another Spalding manuscript.

[Anonymous]

In the above, Wade does not make the distinction between the two manuscripts in question, even though nearly every post above his demonstrates that fact.

There were 2 Spalding manuscripts? Is that right?

I think you're out to lunch, Jersey Girl. There is only one extant Spalding manuscript. It's sometimes called the Roman Story or the Oberlin MS or "Manuscript Found." Wade recognizes, rightly, that most Spalding-Rigdon theorists don't think this was the source for the Book of Mormon, but rather a hypothesized second Spalding manuscript. I fail to see what you find so controversial about his post.

And, by the way, no, I don't believe there were two Spalding manuscripts. (We've been over this before.)

[_wenglund]

Am I correct in concluding that everyone here is at least in agreement that the Book of Mormon was not plagarized from the extant Spalding manuscript (call it what you will: "Roman Story" or "Oberline Manuscript" or "Manuscript Found")?

If so, then I am not sure what value there is in identifying similarities between the extant manuscript and the Book of Mormon, or the discovery narrative for that matte, except perhaps to underscore the point that the two works may contain similarites even when not plagerized (a point that tends to work against Spalding theories). Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For Pete's sake, this is what I detest on a board. There are umpteen posts on this thread and other related threads explaining why the Roman Story is NOT Manuscript Found and someone like you is completely oblivious to it.

Give me a break.

I am not sure why you jumped to the false conclusion that I am supposedly oblivious to that argument. If you look very carefully at my post, you may just find implicit, if not explicit, acknowledgement of the argument--though I don't agree with it. And, if that doesn't suffice, perhaps you can click on the link to my online critique The Spalding Enigma: The Fallacy of Repetition Continued? posted earlier by Brackite, particularly the section on "The "Manuscript Story" is the "Manuscript Found"!. (Thanks, Nevo for pointing this out as well.)

But, whatever the case, you seem to have completely missed and evaded my point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Uncle Dale]

Am I correct in concluding that everyone here is at least in agreement that the Book of Mormon was not plagarized from the extant Spalding manuscript (call it what you will: "Roman Story" or "Oberline Manuscript" or "Manuscript Found")?

If so, then I am not sure what value there is in identifying similarities between the extant manuscript and the Book of Mormon, or the discovery narrative for that matte, except perhaps to underscore the point that the two works may contain similarites even when not plagerized (a point that tends to work against Spalding theories). Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Good point, Wade.

You know -- if I were a student of Mark Twain's writings, I might want to compare "Huckleberry Finn"
to "Life on the Mississippi," or to "Tom Sawyer." I could probably say something about resemblances,
overlap, style, etc.

But how on earth would I even begin to compare "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" to
those Mississippi river stories? Chances are, if I put my finger down at random in the Arthur tale,
I'd be pointing to Twain's paraphrasing of Mallory, or something equally problematic.

I'd be hardpressed to argue how my knowing something about the Arthur book helped me
understand the Mississippi novels. I'd have to bore my readers with statistical talk, or invoke
obscure patterns of word use, or something -- just to begin to make a point.

The Spalding Roman story resembles the Book of Mormon to roughly the same degree that
Twain's Arthur book resembles his Mississippi stories. It's tough going, to move from Spalding
to the Book of Mormon, trying to prove any points of common authorship.

At best, I suppose that the Spalding Roman story presents a set of possibilities -- Possibly
Spalding's old associates confused it with the Book of Mormon -- or, possibly it bears no
relationship to the Book of Mormon and Hurlbut tried to force an untenable correspondence -- or,
possibly the Roman tale was the precursor to a more elaborate piece of Spalding fiction.

Since it is the most lengthy sample of his writing we have available today, it serves as
a probable surrogate for the oft-mentioned "Manuscript Found." But it fills that role
poorly. I really wish somebody would uncover some other example of the man's writing.
The manuscript he reportedly left in Middleton, Vermont might do nicely:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/CA ... 010088-2a4

UD

[_Brackite]

Here is Wade on 'Witness' Aaron (Aron) Wright, and some of the other 'Witnesses' here:

Issue #6: More indications of witness tampering, leading the witnesses, confabulations, and also fraud and forgery


...


Since Jackson was presumably the first that Hurlbut approached for a signed statement (Hurlbut learned about the Spalding manuscript from Jackson, so it is reasonable to assume that he would start with him), and Miller was one of the last witnesses at Conneaut to sign Hurlbut's statement, one may be caused to wonder if Hurlbut wrote most if not all of the affidavits he collected at Conneaut?

Dale Broadhurst, a Spalding researcher, stated in his notes about the December 1833 statement from Aron Wright: "The handwriting on the letter has not been identified. However it bears a strong resemblance to that presumed to have come from D. P. Hurlbut (see his own 1833 note). The document may be a copy of an Aaron Wright letter made by Hurlbut while visiting Wright on or about Dec. 31, 1833." (Dale Broadhurst, Aron Wright affidavit, Note #1)

Richard L. Anderson, in his expose of the Hurlbut affidavits, asserts the following about the Palmyra statements (which, while not direct evidence for how the Conneaut statements were obtained, may be indicative of a consistent pattern with Hurlbut): "One must make a necessary assumption here. The signers of a petition or declaration are normally not authors, merely ratifiers. When Hurlbut appeared in the Manchester schoolhouse, he undoubtedly had penned the statement that eleven rather nonliterary farmers signed. One would envision the same procedure as inevitable for the fifty-one signers from Palmyra. Someone authored the general statements, and Hurlbut is the best candidate." (Richard Lloyd Anderson, BYU Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3, p.286)

( Link: http://www.scn.org/~bp760/conneaut.htm#6 )

Issue #7: The statements conflict with each other in parts, and other irregularities


Because the inconsistencies, contradictions, and other irregularities found among the pro-theory statements are so numerous, I will simply confine myself to listing them below with little commentary, and absent specific citations--though the given statements can be accessed here for verification, trusting that the reader will easily be able to draw the obvious conclusion regarding their accuracy and reliability.


1. Between the two statements attributed to John Spalding (1833 and pre-1851), he was unable to make up his mind whether his brother's story had the Indians descending from the Jews, or the lost tribes, or the tribe of Joseph. His wife, along with Aron Wright, Henry Lake, and Abner Jackson said they descended from the lost tribes, whereas Matilda Davison and John McKinstry said they were from the "long lost race" or the "forgotten race". Joseph Miller wasn't sure if it was the "lost race" or the "lost tribes".

2. Is it a coincidence that John Spalding's pre-1851 mention of the tribe of Joseph (which was his first mention of this) follows on the heals of corrections by LDS about the Book of Mormon not being about the lost ten tribes?

...

4. He originally spoke of Lehi and Nephi coming to America together from Jerusalem, but later had Lehi coming from Chaldea, and Nephi from Palestine (apparently many years apart). While other affidavits have the journey leaving from Jerusalem (Martha Spalding, Oliver Smith, Aron Wright, and John Miller), Redick McKee locates them in Canaan, whereas Abner Jackson says they departed from Palestine or Judea.

...

11. John Spalding and Aron Wright asserted that Joseph Smith allegedly plagiarized Solomon's manuscript, whereas Redick M'Kee and James Briggs figured it was Sidney Rigdon. John McKinstry (Solomon's grandson) implied that both Smith and Rigdon were privy to the manuscript, but that it was Smith who allegedly copied it. William Lang, in a letter to Thomas Gregg in 1881, claimed it was Oliver Cowdery who "worked over" or "revised" the Manuscript Found, "and Smith and Rigdon approved of it before it became the 'Book of Mormon.'" However, Josiah Spalding said that there was nothing in the manuscript "of Mormonism or that favored error in any way."

12. Is it coincidental that Aron Wright makes no mention in his first statement to Hurlbut of Spalding having altered his plans about the story-line of the manuscript, though he does so in his second statement to Hurlbut, and this after Hurlbut had obtained the manuscript from Spalding's wife and shown it to Wright, and both had learned that the manuscript was nothing like what had been described earlier about it?

13. In neither of his statements does Aron Wright mention his having learned of the supposed sameness of the manuscript and the historical part of the Book of Mormon at a public meeting mentioned by Matilda McKinstry in 1880. Nor did he mention having "exclaimed 'Old come to pass has come to life again'" at the same meeting as mentioned by Abner Jackson in 1880.

...

19. In the same statement Mrs. Davison claims that her daughter (Matilda McKinstry) "frequently examined" the manuscript. Here daughter, who was questioned at the same time whether she had read the manuscript, said: "When I was about twelve years old, I used to read it for diversion." However, in 1880 Matilda McKinstry said that she "did not read it, but looked through it and had it in my hands many times. I was eleven years old at the time."

20. This statement from Davison claims that Hurlbut brought introductions from Henry Lake, Aaron Wright, and others making requests for the manuscript, whereas her daughter claimed in 1880 that Hurlbut "presented a letter to my mother from my uncle, William H. Sabine...in which he requested her to loan this manuscript to Hurlbut."

21. In this same statement Matilda speaks unequivicably about the manuscript being taken to Mr. Patterson and "at length returned to the author." However, Hurlbut and Howe indicated six years earlier that, according to Matilda, "whether it [the manuscript] was ever brought back to the house again, she [Matilda Davison] is quite uncertain." According to what Josiah Spalding said about what Matilda had informed him shortly after Solomon's death, Solomon had let the printer take the manuscript,and he (the printer) "kept it some time, and then urged him, my brother, to let him print it. He, my brother, would not consent, but took it back, and she [Matilda] said that she brought it to New York and put it into a chest where she lived."

...

53. Why is there no affidavit collected by Hurlburt from "the Hon Nehmiah King," who allegedly attended the meeting in Kirtland where "Mr. Hyde" preached for the Book of Mormon and was claimed by Aron Wright that he (King) "said that Hyde had preached from the writings of S Spalding?" And, not surprisingly, Wright's claim is contradicted by Hyde, himself.

( Link: http://www.scn.org/~bp760/conneautb.htm#7 )




Good Job, Wade!



Edited to change the list to small type.

[_karl61]

The list above is so dumb. Someone has a manuscript for a short amount of time and they are suppose to be one hundred percent accurate in all details - even fifty years later. And they need to know this assessment is the most important fact they ever will recall in their life - give me a break. The standards they hold these peoples memory to is ridiculous.

All policeman who have investigated an accident know that two, three, four people witnessing the same accident will give different details and views of what happened. And that is after seeing something that shocks them. What do you think the memory of someone will be who views it as just one of twenty things they did one day, years if not decades before.

[_wenglund]

Wade:

Am I correct in concluding that everyone here is at least in agreement that the Book of Mormon was not plagarized from the extant Spalding manuscript (call it what you will: "Roman Story" or "Oberline Manuscript" or "Manuscript Found")?

It's difficult to get a room full of people to agree on anything. It is possible that the Roman story (or a copy of it) was directly used to produce the Book of Mormon, but I don't think there are many people who would argue that. I sure wouldn't. So the answer is probably "yes."

If so, then I am not sure what value there is in identifying similarities between the extant manuscript and the Book of Mormon,

Good question. Short answer... because the testimony has it that Spalding wrote a similar ms to the Roman story; one that told a similar story but used a Biblical style and went farther back in history. If one can identify similarities between the Roman story and the Book of Mormon, then it lends weight to that testimony.

except perhaps to underscore the point that the two works may contain similarites even when not plagerized (a point that tends to work against Spalding theories). Right?

No, because the testimony by those who actually heard Spalding read from his manuscript was that MF was similar to the Roman story. It was written by the same author using a similar premise. The parallels between Spalding's Roman story and Smith's plate-discovery narrative supports the witnesses when they claim there was another Spalding manuscript.

[/quote]

I am not sure why you assume the premises are similar. Let's look what the Conneaut witnesses have said regarding the multiple manuscripts:

1. Aron Wright, Aug 1833: "Spalding had many other manuscripts". Dec. 1833: "I have examined the writings which he [Hurlbut] has obtained from sd Spaldings widowe I recognise them to be the hand writing of sd Spalding but not the manuscript I had refferance to in my statement before alluded to as he informed me he wrote in the first place he wrote for his own amusement and then altered his plan and commenced writing a history of the first Settlement of America the particulars you will find in my testimony Dated August 1833.

2. John Miller, Sept. 1833" Spalding. . .He had written two or three books or pamphlets on different subjects". Miller's daughter, Rachel Derby, commented in Dec. 1884: "Father told him [Hurlbut] that the 'Manuscript Found' was not near all of Spaldings writings."

3. Matilda Mckinstry, April 1880: "There were sermons and other papers, and I saw a manuscript, about an inch thick, closely written, tied with some of the stories my father had written for me, one of which he called, 'The Frogs of Wyndham.'"

According to Wright, then, Spalding had "altered his plan" and wrote about the first settlement in America, and Miller said the manuscripts were "on different subjects". McKinstry differentiated between sermons, papers, manuscripts, and stories. So, even if one grants (for the sake of argument) that the extant manuscript is not the manuscript the Conneaut witness had in mind, I don't see it as accurate for you to claim that the "premises are similar". As such, the question I asked above is still in play.

My question becomes all the more salient when one considers that when doing a textual critical analysis, writing styles as well as subject matter factor in heavily, and according the witness statements, the writing style they described (i.e. "old style", "old obsolete style", "ancient scripture style of writing", "written in Biblical phraseology", etc.) is dissimilar from that found in the extant manuscript. In fact, this dissimilarity and others are used by Spaldingist to argue in favor of a second manuscript.

In short, you can't have it both ways. it doesn't make sense to examine similarities between the Book of Mormon text and the text of a book you agree wasn't plagerized, and which was allegedly written on a different subject and written in a different writing style.

or the discovery narrative for that matte,

The discovery narrative is a different matter. When people first began connecting Spalding to the Book of Mormon there was no "discovery narrative." Spalding's Roman story was also not accessible until 1833-34. Therefore there was an asserted link between Spalding and Smith well before 1838. The parallels between Smith's 1838 account and Spalding's Roman story are an indication that Smith had access to Spalding's writings, and lend further support to the testimony that had already been given.

This is an excellent point, but unfortunately, it works against your theory in multiple ways. Since the Conneaut witnesses testimonies predate publication of the Book of Mormon discovery narrative, and since the Book of Mormon did not, itself, contain the discovery narrative; and since the witness testimonies mention a discovery narrative ("represented as being found in this town", "recovered from the earth", "...opened a great mound, where there were human bones. There he found a written history...", "dug up out of one of the mounds in the region", "Spaulding's romance professed to find the Record where the Recorder concealed it, in one of those mounds, one of which was but a few rods from Spaulding's residence"), then at least this aspect of the witness testimony is inconsistent with what they had heard about or read regarding the Book of Mormon at the time, though certainly cnsistent with what one may read in the extant Spalding manuscript. In short, the witness testimonies on this point don't fit what was written in the Book of Mormon, but do fit the extant manuscript (which you agree was not plagerized). It, thus, is evidence against the Book of Mormon being plagerized, and evidence in favor of a single "Manuscript Found". Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

The list above is so dumb. Someone has a manuscript for a short amount of time and they are suppose to be one hundred percent accurate in all details - even fifty years later. And they need to know this assessment is the most important fact they ever will recall in their life - give me a break. The standards they hold these peoples memory to is ridiculous.

All policeman who have investigated an accident know that two, three, four people witnessing the same accident will give different details and views of what happened. And that is after seeing something that shocks them. What do you think the memory of someone will be who views it as just one of twenty things they did one day, years if not decades before.

Speaking of dumb, I am not sure how you missed the glaringly obvious point. Of course there are going to be inconcistencies of eye-witness testimonies 20 to 50 years after the fact. One would expect it. Recollections that far removed from the event in question are bound to be unreliable and riddled with conflations and false memories, particularly when prompted by people with agendas and motivated by remuneration. In fact, as I mentioned in the online critique, were there not such inconsistencies, the testimonies would be all the more suspect.

Yet, because of the high potential for inconsistencies and false memories with distant and aged recolections, that is why it is foolhearty to give the testimonies much credence or credibility, particularly since it can't be determined which part, if any, of the inconsistencies to believe.

Can you imagine how absurd it would be were a person to be accused of plagerizing a doctoral dissertation, and while there is an extant dissertation which bears little or no resemblance to that written by the accused (and most every agrees isn't the source of the alleged plagerizing), the best the accuser have to offer as a case is a handful or more of 20 to 50 year-old vague and inconsistent recollections from people, some of whom were in their 80's and paid for their testimonies, of what they heard read of the alleged dissertation that was supposedly plagerized? The thought beggars belief.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_marg]

Here is Wade on 'Witness' Aaron (Aron) Wright, and some of the other 'Witnesses' here:

Issue #6: More indications of witness tampering, leading the witnesses, confabulations, and also fraud and forgery


...

It's obvious you don't know WTF you are talking about Brackite. Care to explain what Wade said about Aaron that is important and relevant. And what exactly Wade said that you thought used good reasoning?

Wade's web site that you linked to is so poor in critical thinking that I wouldn't want to spend the time commenting on it. It doesn't deserve recognition, nor comments on.

It is not surprising that witnesses statements differ..what would be important is where they differ on critical points. It's not surprising that Hurbut didn't do a professional investigative job, that he went to witnesses to gather information and sought only information which he thought was key. These were not witnesses who went out of their way to help Hurlbut, they were for the most part disinterested witnesses who agreed to be questioned and would sign the statement Hurlbut would take down via his questioning of them. None of them later ever said, Hurlbut misrespresented them.

If you think Wade has a few really good points, pick the best ones though, then post them. But to take large quotes that really are very poorly reasoned arguments..is a waste of time to address.