Roger writes:
With all due respect, if this were the only thing the two accounts had in common, it would indeed be nit-picky. But within the context of all the similarities and testimony, it is not nit-picky. The fact that the two accounts are relatively contemporary is relevant. The fact that Spalding's writing came first is important. The fact that both accounts deal with a modern finder of ancient records is relevant.
And my response to this is quite simple Roger - presenting a mountain of bad evidence doesn't make a good case. You might have a point if many of these similarities were good - that is, they were somehow unique, or weren't found in other sources - but that really isn't the case here. When we start pulling the bad examples out, it isn't really a context of "all the similarities". And testimony has no real place in this discussion. All testimony does is to provide us what some people thought - but my experiences is that most of these people were likely unfamiliar with the texts themselves - to the extent that it calls their testimony into question.
The problem with the notion of a modern finder of ancient records is that it isn't particularly special. How familiar are you (serious question) with early 19th century literature? How much have you actually read? I have read a great deal, and have a large personal collection. So I can suggest with some degree of confidence that these kinds of stories are not all that uncommon - but I suspect that you haven't actually read any beyond the immediate context.
I think this is one of the weaker comparisons since Dale is drawing from the Book of Mormon and not Smith's account. Nevertheless, Dale is going on a hypothesis that links the two to a common author and then offers evidence to support the hypothesis. That is certainly reasonable. And since the wp study supports the connection, it is reasonable to consider all possible parallels. But the susequent parallels are certainly stronger.
I don't think it is reasonable. In fact, it isn't a normal process. There is a term used in literary studies to describe this process. You may have heard it. It is called the Intentional Fallacy.
Once you "broaden the search" you have changed the playing field with no justification for doing so. Spalding may have had more than one way of saying "near the banks" but the point is that these two match as they stand and therefore add to the larger body of comparisons
I do have justification. The parallels which Dale proposes are not exact. They are broad enough that I can probably find tens of thousands of similar statements in contemporary literature. And this means that this isn't a particularly Spaldingish phrase - it is quite common in Joseph's environment. How do you propose to claim that it comes from Spalding and not from somplace else? Oh that's right. The mountain of evidence (of which this is a part).
Not really. In fact your reasoning here is tautological. The fact that "Both narratives are written within a few years of each other and describe contemporary events" is NOT the reason why "the events described occur within a few years of each other," rather you're simply stating the same thing twice--that the accounts describe contemporary events and are written by relatively contemporary authors. If this were all there were to it then, yes, the notion of contemporary writers writing about their personal experiences is unimpressive. But that is NOT Dale's point. He says it pretty well himself:
I think you miss the point. The point is that Dale's statement doesn't actually make a lot of sense. He says, as you note:
Considering the vast reaches of this planet and the millenia of recorded history, the two discoveries of ancient records happened in practically the same place (in terms of time and space).
Why limit it to this planet? Or even to recorded history? Every coincidence can be described in this way. It is the definition of coincidence. What you are saying is that it seems more likely to be a coincidence than if the two had been a million miles apart. But this doesn't help us determine (a) whether or not it is a coincidence, and (b) whether or not there is plagiarism. Assuming that it is coincidence, the fact that both writers are dealing with near contemporary events also explains why both texts deal with near contemporary events. Since the one comes from the other, Dale's comments really don't have a lot of application to the narrative content beyond the first point - that both are talking about contemporary events. But more than that is simply a way of rephrasing this same point (much as you are suggesting of me).
Dale's point is that it is truly remarkable that Spalding is writing a fictional account of the discovery of ancient writings in pre-1816 Ohio and then Smith just happens to produce an allegedly true account of the same type of discovery happening to him in practically the same time in history and practically the same geographical location and in roughly the same chronological sequence.
This seems to me to a relatively broad description though - i.e. what do you mean by "the same type of discovery" beyond some generalities? Would you classify The Golden Pot as making the same kind of discoveries?
Even if Smith's story is true (and I don't think it is) it is still a remarkable coincidence. That is Dales's point--not that two contemparary writers chose to write about contemporary events
And I don't. I know of some rather remarkable coincidences first hand. For example, for a number of years, my mother wrote romance novels. When she submitted her first novel (where she got a contract), her agent told her that the publishing company (Silhouette) was requiring her to make significant changes to the plot line, as it happened to be a virtually identical plot to one of their other author's current (as yet unpublished) books. The problem that I have with this is that rather remarkable coincidences happen all the time. And really, I don't think this is all that remarkable.
First, you admit "there is a parallel." In fact there are several parallels--walking up hill, stone, lever... Second you don't like Dale's phrase "exact location" and yet Dale never agues that both artifacts were found in the exact same location rather he seems to be simply titling that particular set of parallels the "exact location." You complained about being nit-picky earlier, I'd have to say this is rather nit-picky. So the "parallel" you acknowledged is valid.
There are always parallels Roger. Walking up a hill? Jack and Jill? The question is about significance. Are they significant parallels. Part of the issue (which rarely gets bumped into) is over intention. What is the value in the borrowing? Was Joseph incapable of coming up with his own story so that he had to borrow the idea of walking up a hill? Of lifting a stone with a lever? And it isn't exact. Joseph is out in the woods, Spalding is near a ruins. I think I am being nit-picky because this really doesn't rise to the level of evidence (a fact you would understand if you started with accepted methodologies).
Again you seem to want to apply tautological reasoning. Spalding could indeed have chosen to write in the third person. His account was fiction. He could have said my friend Sidney discovered Indian parchments and here's the account... He could have gone off in any number of non-parallel directions. But he didn't he chose to write a fictional account of himself finding ancient records! --or do you believe that Spalding really did find ancient parchment?
Do you really want to make these kinds of assertions? What makes for useful parallels isn't the mundane, and the ordinary, but the unusual, and the unique. How many narratives do we have of first person discoveries versus third person? Did Archivist Lindhorst (The Golden Pot) couch his discovery in the third person? What I am saying is that nearly all fictional accounts of discovery (and historical real accounts for that matter) are described in the first person. Take as an example, the W.P. Harris account of the discovery of the Kinderhook Plates:
On the 23rd, he and quite a number of the citizens, with myself, repaired to the mound; and after making ample opening, we found plenty of rock, the most of which appeared as though it had been strongly burned; and after removing full two feet of said rock, we found plenty of charcoal and ashes; also human bones that appeared as though they had been burned; and near the encephalon a bundle was found that consisted of six plates of brass of a bell shape, each having a hole near the small end, and a ring through them all, and clasped with two clasps. The rings and clasps appeared to be iron very much oxydated.
The plates appeared first to be copper, and had the appearance of being covered with characters.
It was agreed by the company that I should cleanse the plates. Accordingly I took them to my house, washed them with soap and water and a woolen cloth; but, finding them not yet cleansed, I treated them with dilute sulphuric acid, which made them perfectly clean, on which it appeared that they were completely covered with hieroglyphics that none as yet have been able to read.
Wishing that the world might know the hidden things as fast as they come to light, I was induced to state the facts, hoping that you would give it an insertion in your excellent paper; for we all feel anxious to know the true meaning of the plates, and publishing the facts might lead to the true translation.
They were found, I judged, more than twelve feet below the surface of the top of the mound.
There we go. A mound, digging in it, removal of stones, finding a document with writing on it, all in the first person. I am not impressed with Dale's parallel. Now, had Spalding used the third person, and Joseph Smith used the third person, that might be more unusual - but in this case, having both in the first person is what we should probably expect.
Not really. Dale supported his conjecture with evidence from the text. Such conjecture is reasonable.
To put it bluntly, what evidence?
Really... you complain about being nit-picky and then offer the above as criticism?
I didn't miss it. Smith wasn't alone. In fact, he never states he was alone. When he goes to touch the record, what happens? Oh, that's right, he's not alone.
The point is not that discovering something ancient leads one to wonder about the ancient inhabitants but that a fiction writer and an allegedly unrelated person who is allegedly telling his own true story share nearly the same experiences and wonderment.
The problem is that it doesn't seem to be that unusual - when it happens in every story of a discovery like this. If you were the discoverer of an ancient record, what would your reaction be?
More nit-pickiness. Dale never says it is "the stone that leads him to the discovery"; rather it is "the detection of" the stone that allows the discovery to proceed. If you believe Smith then you'll also believe that an angel led him to the spot, but the stone is a key element in both accounts. You're either not understanding or deliberately twisting Dale's words.
It's all about nitpicking. In this case, its perfectly appropriate. The broader and more vague the parallels get, the less and less useful they become. I think you also miss the point. In Spalding's story, the stone itself is part of the discovery. It has figures on it. It means something. The stone is not the key element in Joseph's story. It doesn't play the same role. This is interpretation on your part. Joseph mentions the stone, but it isn't an act of discovery.
Yes. If the accounts were exactly alike they would not be "parallel" but rather direct copies
This is such a great line because it means so little. Obviously we can dismiss all differences on this particular point, right? It's like that old joke:
Q: How is a goose like a motorcycle
A: They both have handle bars .... except the goose.
That you would not identify it as such does not make you right nor those who do wrong.
By which you mean that it is personal interpretation and not necessarily a feature of the narrative.
Only if you wish to convince me you are right. This is apparently the best argument you have. Like you, I do not deny the obvious parallels. Like you I do not see it as terribly impressive that Scott's version has similar elements, nevertheless, the differences you are quick to point to between Smith and Spalding are small in comparison to these... building not hill, room full of men, two men work the lever, no ancient writing, etc, etc.
And likewise, it is only your set of parallels that is somehow significant. This is the underlying problem with the whole discussion by you (and Dale). Long lists of parallels can be found between unrelated texts. They don't have to be the same parallels, but that we can find lists of parallels is an indication that parallels do occur coincidentally. This means that you cannot simply provide a list of vague parallels and expect it to sit as some kind of evidence. Otherwise, we can connect all sorts of texts, and accuse all sorts of authors as plagiarists. But it doesn't work that way in real life.
That said, I still agree that there are parallels, the most striking of which is the lever. Since Spalding's account could possibly date to as late as 1816, it is quite possible that Spalding borrowed from Scott. Donofrio has shown convinsingly that Spalding borrows from Mercy Otis Warren so it is certainly possible that he may have borrowed some elements from Scott.
And now we sink into parallelomania. I have a copy someplace of an early 19th century work describing farm tools including the use of levers to remove stones. Obviously it too must be reliant on one or the other of these texts. Are you really suggesting a connection here?
In any case, while this is your best shot so far, it does little to downplay the similarities between Smith and Spalding... they still exist. Even if Scott's account has no relationship to Spalding's, what you're arguing is: Spalding's account parallels Scott's by coincidence, therefore Spalding's account parallels Smith's by coincidence.
I am not trying to downplay the parallels. I am trying to show you that they aren't terribly significant.
This is faulty. Essentially you point out three similarities in two allegedly unlrelated accounts (they could actually be related) ...
How many parallels do I need to provide you with before you agree that I have something that we can guarantee is unrelated? Let me know. Your argument is really stretching thin here. And it is still based on the certainty of your position as opposed to the quality (or lack of) of your evidence.
Yes I do since, if I'm not mistaken, you are LDS then your skepticism is quite natural.
You know, this is such a funny statement - because not once in this discussion have I argued a blatantly obvious position. I have talked about The Golden Pot. I have used other early 19th century sources. Would you care to explain to me what bias you think my LDS belief has given to my comments?
The parallels are presented in a straightforward manner. It is your criticism of them that is presented in "the best possible light." You yourself have acknowledged that they are "indeed parallels." Therefore they are indeed evidence. If the claims of 1833 witnesses had any merit, we might anticipate finding evidence of parallels between the known writings of Smith and Spalding since Smith had gotten away with it once before. And we do see parallels between an account written by Spalding and another written by Smith. You bet that's evidence.
The parallels are insignificant. That they exist says nothing about Joseph's intentions. Nor is it evidence of any kind that Joseph was aware of Spalding's work. There is nothing in these parallels to indicate that Joseph must have known of Spalding's work, or even have been familiar with it in some third hand fashion. This is not evidence. It doesn't even look like evidence. What it looks like is parallelomania. And your claims are no different from a Vogel, or a Donofrio, or a Metcalfe, or a Palmer, or any other who has put forward some parallel based argument which the Spalding theory competes with.
A certain amount of changes would have been necessary since Spalding is writing a fictional account about himself in Ohio and Smith is writing an alleged history of his own experience on a real hill in New York. People could have easily looked and discovered there was no cave at the top of the hill Cumorah.
There is always some rational argument for the differences right? Some excuse. Some way to explain it away. Some way to justify both the similarities and the differences. Out of curiousity, what kind of textual evidence would you see as disproving the theory of borrowing? That is, what is the falsifiability of the position of borrowing between Spalding and Smith?
Again, your best argument so far is the comparison between Scott's account and Spalding's and Smith's. But the point you wish to make when employing that argument fails since you apparently want us to conclude that: a small number of similarities in two allegedly unrelated accounts is apparently the result of coincidence and, therefore, the greater number of similarities and the similar chronology we see between two accounts who's authors were indeed accused of being connected prior to the production of the second account, is the result of similar coincidence.
And this tells me that you are so wrapped up in the faulty process that you use, that you can't really tell what's going on. It's the method that's faulty. I can use the same argument to demonstrate plagiarism between hundreds and thousands of books. Obviously, it must be true right?
You have provided no good reason for me to reject the idea that Smith probably used a manuscript written by Spalding to produce his allegedly first hand account of finding plates.
[/quote]
Except to point out that there is no good reason to accept the idea either. If you want to make such an argument, then you will have to abandon your current line of thinking, adopt some formal method, and apply it.
Ben M.