Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

[_Roger]

Wade:

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.

Of course it does. The Roman story may not have been plagiarized directly, but it was written by the same author who had been associated by the Con. witnesses with the Book of Mormon. It was not "written on a different subject", but rather a different story on the same general subject and even though it may have been written in a different writing style (on purpose), it was still written by the same author---meaning the author who wrote the Roman story is the same guy who allegedly wrote Manuscript Found. So, yes, it makes a lot of sense to look at his extant manuscript and make comparisons with the Book of Mormon and with Smith's discovery narrative.

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.

I strongly suspect that Manuscript Found had a discovery narrative in it that closely parallels that found in the Roman story. It is that discovery narrative, I believe, that Joseph Smith copied in 1838 with a few of his own changes and additions. If I am right about that, then everything fits very nicely... witness testimony, account in the Roman story, Smith's account, everything. So while I appreciate your sympathy, I don't think I'll be needing it.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
I strongly suspect that Manuscript Found had a discovery narrative in it that closely parallels that found in
the Roman story. It is that discovery narrative, I believe, that Joseph Smith copied in 1838 with a few of his
own changes and additions....

Possibly so. But this remains speculation.

In any truly objective reporting on Spalding it only merits a footnote --
given the evidence currently available for citation.

It may be best to put the speculation "on the shelf" for a while and concentrate
on working through more solid material -- such as word-print analysis.

Perhaps one day more documentary evidence will become available. Until then,
about all we can do is to state our personal opinions/conclusions and move on.

UD

[_marg]

Perhaps one day more documentary evidence will become available. Until then,
about all we can do is to state our personal opinions/conclusions and move on.

UD

Well we can also choose to discuss only with those who indicate they are truly interested in truth and are capable of being intellectually honest.

When there are individuals in this thread who willingly accept the non credible Book of Mormon testimonies of seeing angels, and hearing God's voice in a statment that was preprepared for them to sign then they criticize the Spalding statements for not being entirely consistent with one another..then it's obvious there is a problem with their ability to be intellectually honest. And I find generally it is a waste of time discussing with such individuals. Their goal is to affirm their faith based beliefs, not to seek what is most likely true in this matter. Their truth, is based on faith..the antithesis of using reasoning and employing intellectual honesty.

[_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 he is well aware of it.

Again, you are dancing around the obvious, Nevo. What I objected to was Wade deceptively stringing together the text titles: Roman Story-Oberlin Manuscript-Manuscript Found to identify a single text. No matter how much apologists would like to lead people to believe, the Roman Story/Oberlin Manuscript is NOT Manuscript Found.

I agree with what marg has recently written regarding the lack of intellectual honesty on the part of some of the posters on this thread. One can only tolerate going in circles for so long with people whose desire it is to reinforce a lie before one chooses to get off the merry-go-round entirely.

There are people far more capable than you or I working dilligently to correct the errors and mistruths that apologists have presented to LDS as if they were fact.

The fact is, that Roman Story/Oberlin Manscript is not and cannot be Manuscript Found. That there is one extant copy of a Spalding manuscript and that said manuscript is being touted by apologists as the one and only manuscript authored by Spalding that could have been what was identified to be the framework for the Book of Mormon, when documented witnesses fully testified that the Manuscript Found was a completed manuscript in comparision to The Roman Story/Oberlin Manuscript which is not and that they persist in perpetuating this falsehood to their own kind is simply beyond belief in it's lack of conscience.

[_Jersey Girl]

We have the Book of Mormon and we have Spalding's Roman story and we have the JST and the POGP and D & C. We have newspaper accounts, which have to be evaluated individually, etc. We don't have any plates. We don't have Manuscript Found.

We do have Manuscript Found. Manuscript Found is the Spaulding's Roman story.
Here is The Following, From Brigham H. Roberts:

That statement bears all the earmarks of an "afterthought," a silly invention. There is not a single scrap of evidence in all that has been written upon the subject, that goes beyond the date of Hurlburt's delivery of "Manuscript Found," to E. D. Howe, to the effect that Spaulding had written more than one paper that purported to deal with a found manuscript, or the ancient inhabitants of America. The "Frogs of Wyndham" and infidel disquisitions were more in his line. (42)
Why was it that the neighbors of Spaulding about Conneaut did not say before this manuscript was brought to light by Howe, Hurlburt, et al, that Spaulding had written several manuscripts on the subject of the ancient inhabitants of America; one that told of a Roman colony that came to America and settled in the Ohio valley, the story of their adventures being "written in modern style;" but that this story he abandoned and wrote another, going farther back with his dates and assigning to the people an Israelitish origin and writing in the old scripture style? How valuable such evidence, ante-dating Hurlburt's coming to Conneaut with Spaulding's manuscript, would be! But it does not exist.

There was enough in the fact that Solomon Spaulding had written a story connected in some way with a manuscript which he feigned to have found in a stone box in a cave; which he further feigned to have translated into English; and which story had something to do with a colony coming in ancient times from the Old World to the New; and that there were great and sanguinary wars in the story--to suggest a similarity with the Book of Mormon. With so much as a basis it will go hard with human invention, under the circumstances, if out of the dim recollections, of some twenty-two or twenty-three years ago, it cannot "remember" that there was a similarity and even identity of names between those of Spaulding's Manuscript and those of the Book of Mormon. Especially since the Book of Mormon is now in their hands, and they have either read it, or heard it read and have the names of Lehi, Nephi, Moroni, Zarahemla, and some phrases such as "and it came to pass," etc., with which to refresh their "memories!"


42. See Mrs. McKinstry's statement, SCRIBNER'S MAGAZINE, August, 1880. Also DESERET NEWS print of "Manuscript Found," pp. 114, 115, where the infidel opinions of Mr. Spaulding are expressed.

( AMERICAN HISTORICAL MAGAZINE. )

( Links: http://www.shields-research.org/General ... OBERTS.htm And: http://solomonspalding.com/docs2/1908Ro ... oberts1908 )

Bracki,

The above does not disclose the full story. The Roman Story/Oberlin Manuscript is NOT Manuscript Found. That is a falsehood that has been perpetuated by apologists for years to the members of their own church.

Having said that, I encourage you to examine Dale Broadhurst's website and also the Jockers et al (2008) wordprint study. In the wordprint study you will see that the Roman Story/Oberlin Manuscript produced the signals for Spalding in the Book of Mormon.

In other words, the lack of an extant copy of Manuscript Found is entirely irrelevant. A known work of Spalding was used to produce evidence that a manuscript of Spalding's was used to write the Book of Mormon.

There is more coming.

Most sincerely,
Jersey Girl

[_Brackite]

Brackite, one of the witnesses Aaron Wright who I consider very credible... he was well respected by the town, a judge...stated in his testimony to Hurlbut Aug 1833.."Spalding had many other manuscripts which I expect to see when Smith translates his plates". In his testimony to Hurlbut it is clear by the details he gives, he is not referencing The Roman Story by Spalding.

YES, Aaron Wright was a Justice of the Peace, and He operated a retail store.

Note 3: The extracts do provide some information on Aaron Wright (1775-1855). Wright was born on March, 19, 1775, presumably in New England. He came to the banks of Conneaut Cr. from Harpersfield, Delaware Co., NY in 1798 and the following year built a house on what later became the George W. Cumming's property on Liberty Street. During the course of his life in the area Wright operated a grist mill, served in the local government (including being a Justice of the Peace in 1813-1815), and operated a retail store. Wright married Anna Montgomery (1784-1857) on March 12, 1800 (in one of the very first marriages celebrated in the Ohio Western Reserve). They had several children, including Harriet, who was born July, 28, 1805 in New Salem, OH; she married Zaphna Lake on Aug. 22, 1824 in Ashtabula Co., OH., and died Sept. 30, 1878 at Winona, MN. Aaron Wright himself died on Dec. 28, 1855 (presumably in Conneaut).

( Link: http://web.archive.org/web/200602070441 ... oweHL2.htm )



In August of 1833, Aaron Wright claimed in a statement that "Spalding had many other manuscripts, which I expect to see when Smith translates his other plate."

In December of 1833, there is another statement. However, this statement was in the handwriting of Doctor Philastus Hurlbut, and that Aaron Wright merely signed this Statement.

Note 1: 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. If the document is such a "copy," it may not be a totally accurate representation of Wright's words. The paper includes a cash receipt for what was then a large amount of money. This receipt is written on the reverse side, upside down from the body of the letter, as though added to a previously discarded sheet of paper. The short note is possibly Aaron Wright's duplicate of a receipt given to a customer on Dec. 31, 1833. The paper with the receipt (and presumably discarded letter) was most likely preserved among the records of Lake & Wright's Conneaut retail store until it came into the possession Aaron's daughter, Harriet Wright. Harriet Wright (1805-1877) married Hiram Lake's brother Zaphna Lake (1799-1858) on Aug. 22, 1824 and it is likely it was she and her husband who passed the document on to Hiram Lake.

( Link: http://web.archive.org/web/200602070441 ... oweHL2.htm )

Note 2: At the time the receipt and draft letter were written Zaphna Lake was serving as the Sheriff of Ashtabula Co. (where New Salem or "Conneaut" is located). He no doubt visisted the store he and his father-in-law Aaron Wright operated in Conneaut at some subsequent date, noticed the old document in the files, and eventually turned over to his brother, Hiram. The paper remained within the Lake family papers until 1914 when Mrs. Hiram Lake donated it to the New York Public Library. It is on file there in the Manuscript Division's "Solomon Spalding Miscellaneous Papers," along with an accompanying 1811 business agreement paper signed by Solomon Spalding and Henry Lake (father of Hiram and Zaphna) and. See also: August 1833 Aaron Wright Statement (from E. D. Howe's Mormonism Unvailed Chapter XIX).

( Link: http://web.archive.org/web/200602070441 ... oweHL2.htm )



From Wade Again:

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)

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



From Matthew Roper:

Finally, there is the fact, noted by the authors, that the statement is in the hand of Hurlbut, rather than that of Wright (pp. 60, 444 n. 11). Wright apparently did not draft his own statement. This supports the conclusion of many historians that, in collecting testimony, Hurlbut drafted many of the statements published by Howe and simply had people sign them.[73] This new evidence, if it is authentic, would appear to support that conclusion.

( Link: http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... m=2&id=584 )

[_karl61]

"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)"


People use this to discredit the argument but it really says a lot: it says that Uncle Dale seeks truth and can show weaknesses in certain areas - he doesn't try to white wash the facts. He is not withholding information that would weaken his theory. This shows he has credibility.

[_mikwut]

Jersey,

Well, intellectual honesty is now a sword used to make 'theory' a fact. The fact is Jersey that there are two competing theories regarding the speculative MF. One theory is there is no MF found and the witness testimony is referring to the extant Roman Story, this is not only apologists, Dan Vogel for example accepts this. The other theory speculates that there is another lost manuscript. The witness statements do not reach the status of fact regarding a speculative second manuscript. It is dishonest to to try to shove that aside.

my regards, mikwut

[_Nevo]

Again, you are dancing around the obvious, Nevo. What I objected to was Wade deceptively stringing together the text titles: Roman Story-Oberlin Manuscript-Manuscript Found to identify a single text.

If that was your objection, why didn't you just say so? In any case, the extant Spalding manuscript is sometimes called "Manuscript Found." It was even published under that title by BYU in 1996. Wade thoughtfully prefaced the list of alternative names with "call it what you will..." in deference to sensitive souls like yourself. If you don't want to call it "Manuscript Found" then don't.

The fact is, that Roman Story/Oberlin Manscript is not and cannot be Manuscript Found.

No, that is not a fact. It is a supposition. One that I don't happen to share.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

I know its been a couple days, but I had family stuff out of town. I am going to try and get through everything.

First for Marg, Nehemiah King. I think, Marg, that all that what we have from N. King is evidence for is that N. King made a statement that he believed that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from Spalding's work. Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide N. King's statements, demonstrating that he had both read Spalding's work, and the Book of Mormon, and the specifics of his claims that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from Spalding's work.

This would be a good place to start, don't you?

In terms of this, one thing that I find very frequently (especially among the early sources) is that there is a good deal of borrowing going on (we could call it plagiarism, but I am feeling generous). Sometimes it is evident - not just because sources say the exact same things about the subject, but also because sometimes a source makes an error which then gets carried through other sources. It would not surprise me to discover that N. King was not the originator of this rumor, and that he had, in fact, never actually read the Book of Mormon prior to his comments. But, rather than getting off on speculative tangents, lets just look at what we have an decide what it is actually evidence of, ok?