Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Roger
_Emeritus
Posts: 1905
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:29 am

Re: Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

Post by _Roger »

Ben:

Although I heartily disagree with you, I appreciate your perspective and willingness to discuss it.

Ben wrote:

In terms of common vocabulary, the Book of Mormon and the Roman story share similarities at about the same frequency as comparing most other books from the same period. The rate at which we find common locutions is also likewise similar. The statistics don't appreciably help your argument here. So just finding common vocabulary, and common phrases has never been accepted in literary studies as evidence of plagiarism without other text based arguments.


Dale wrote:

What I find particularly interesting (and what Mormons typically ignore)
are the patterns of distribution of "Spaldingish" language in the Book of Mormon

Browse through this list of word-strings shared by the two texts (that is
Spalding's Roman story and the Book of Mormon) -- and notice the book and chapters
where most of them are located.

The word-strings parallels were compiled by my reading through Spalding,
one sentence at a time, and comparing each set of two, three and four
words in a row that I encountered, with a Book of Mormon concordance. By using that
method of locating phraseology parallels in the two texts, we might expect
that my compilation would indicate a more or less "uniform" distribution
throughout the Book of Mormon. If Spalding's writings did NOT go into the Mormon book,
then no particular part of that book should resemble Spalding's language
more (or less) than the average phraseology overlap found in all the book.
Or, at least no particular part of the Book of Mormon should stand out, as containing
many, many more textual parallels than the remainder of the book.


From a layman's point of view, these two statements seem to contradict each other. In other words... it seems to me only one of you can be right.... right?
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."

- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
_Roger
_Emeritus
Posts: 1905
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:29 am

Re: Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

Post by _Roger »

Dale:

I wonder if you could shed any additional light on this "Straits of Darien" thing.

The logic is that Miller's use of the term is an indication that he is telling the truth about MF since he doesn't get the term from either the Roman story or the Book of Mormon.

Ben suggests that he is getting it from newspaper buzz in 1832:

That is very problematic because you have Miller definitely mentioning the "Straits of Darien" as part of his testimony in 1833 and only Roper's speculation that he's getting that specific detail from the "buzz" around him that wasn't actually put in print until 1840.

I have an 1832 account mentioning Orson Pratt in connection with the Straits of Darien which was printed in at least two newspapers - following preaching on the subject of the Book of Mormon geography in which he appears to have suggested that Zarahemla was near the Straits of Darien. Marquardt also mentions this in his book. So, what you are saying isn't actually accurate.


I'm guessing Ben is referencing this:

In early 1832, a year before Hurlbut joined the church, Orson Pratt and Lyman Johnson served a mission to the eastern states during which they passed through northwestern Pennsylvania. A newspaper correspondent in Mercer Country, Pennsylvania, described a cottage meeting in which Johnson and Pratt preached and gave a brief description of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the Nephite narrative. According to this report, the missionaries said that "the last battle that was fought among these parties was on the very ground where the plates were found, but it had been a running battle, for they commenced at the Isthmus of Darien and ended at Manchester,"[129] which would, obviously, have them moving in a northeast direction, just as in John Miller's statement. When we compare Pratt's popularized narrative of the Book of Mormon with 1833 descriptions of the Spalding manuscript, each comparison suggests the borrowing of themes and language from the former for the latter, as shown in the columns below. In the left column are selections from Orson Pratt's first published account on the Book of Mormon in 1840 and the secondhand description of the earlier Pennsylvania correspondent's report from 1832. On the right are parallels from the Hurlbut statements, which clearly reflect similar ideas and phraseology.

.....


The secondhand report shows that Pratt (and probably others) were expressing similar views in their missionary presentations of the Book of Mormon in northwestern Pennsylvania as early as the winter of 1832. The comparison also shows that the Spalding statements share specific words and phrases used by Orson Pratt. Instead of evidence for a second Spalding manuscript, Miller's statement more likely reflects early Latter-day Saint interpretations of Book of Mormon geography as expressed by early missionaries. Significantly, Pratt visited Springfield, Erie County, Pennsylvania, a year later, in 1833, and preached to a congregation there on 4 April 1833.[133] Hurlbut, then a recent convert serving a mission, was also in attendance at that meeting, although there is no record of him preaching.[134] Springfield is the very place where John Miller lived when he provided Hurlbut with a statement in September of that year.

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


So Ben's logic per Roper is that Miller got the "Isthmus of Darien" from a newspaper report on Pratt or possibly even from Pratt himself.

Of course it sounds like there is a case to be made there, but I am not so sure. In the first place, it is clear that Pratt is not discussing the landing but instead the final battle which he describes as:

The last battle was fought among these parties was on the very ground where the plates were found, but it had been a running battle, for they commenced at the Isthmus of Darien and ended at Manchester (1832).


Putting aside the absurdity of a "running battle" extending from Panama to Manchester, NY, Pratt does not indicate a possible landing site, unless we are supposed to just take that for granted; he's talking about the final battle, whereas Miller and John Spalding are clearly referencing a landing site.

Second, Pratt does not use the term "Straits of Darien" but instead says" Isthmus of Darien."

Finally, and most important.... how does Pratt know this? Where is Pratt getting his information from?

Isn't Pratt one of the guys who looks like a possible contributor to the Book of Mormon according to the recent wp study? Is there something to this?

Isn't it possible that Pratt is also getting this "Isthmus of Darien" idea from a Spalding manuscript?
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."

- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
_marg

Re: Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

Post by _marg »

Benjamin McGuire wrote: And I am always disappointed (but not surprised) when I get this kind of response. You don't actually want to discuss the literary theory, you want to place the discussion back in the context of religion where, I am fairly confident, you along with Roger can dismiss beliefs on the basis that it isn't rational.


Ben I criticized your critical thinking in which you claimed that that a circular argument was being employed in looking at parallels and therefore should be dismissed. I only brought up your religious views because you appear to want to support the Smith only theory, but you appear to do so, not because you are interested or want to argue that theory in opposition to the S/R theory but because it is in line with your religious views. My focus was not your religious views, my focus was your critical thinking as you apply it to the S/R theory and your invocation of the Smith only theory.

With regards to the concept of "circular argument"...all deductive arguments employ circular reasoning. That is the conclusive conclusion can only be reached because the conclusion is contained within the premises..and there is no leap of reasoning added to reach the conclusion such as there is in inductive reasoning. So in deductive reasoning the conclusion is only as reliably good or true as the premises. When it is very obvious that the premises contain no more than the conclusion it is often referred to as begging the question, or circular reasoning. This tends to be problematic when premises are a function of mere assertions unwarranted with evidence. Any conclusion reached based upon an assertion absent evidence would be faith based and hence unreliable.

But you were arguing a different sort of circular reasoning. You were arguing that there is a circular argument existing between noted parallels between texts and witnesses's statements as if the are dependent on one another and therefore should be dismissed. This just isn't the case. The witnesses' statements exist independently to noted parallels, and noted parallels exist independently to witnesses's statements. They each are evidence. Even though they exist independently, finding parallels between texts supports a conclusion that plagiarism likely occurred and that in turn supports the witnesses's statements that Spalding's work was plagiarized. This is not circular reasoning of the begging the question sort, which is a fallacy. This is legitimate good reasoning, there no fallacious reasoning here.


Obviously if the Spalding witnesses allege plagiarism, then any and all evidence which turns up, which further substantiates or points to evidence for plagiarism, is going to support/bolster the witnesses' accusation in their statement, which in turn adds credibility to their statement. That's a given. It's obvious. This is not circular reasoning...the findings of plagiarism based upon the parallels are independent to the witnesses' statements. The witnesses didn't create the parallels. Not finding parallels does not automatically discount the witnesses statements, however finding parallels does support their statements.


The kind of evidence you use for plagiarism is an examination of the texts. But do you see how you have created an unfalsifiable argument? You suggest that any parallel must be evidence for the accuracy of the witnesses statement. And then you explain that not finding parallels doesn't discredit their statements. Well, how do you suppose those statements could be discredited? Obviously, I am taking an entirely different route.


No I do not say that any parallel must be evidence for the accuracy of the witnesses' statements. The parallel's support or bolster the credibility of the witnesses' statements that plagiarism occurred. It's another piece of data added to help answer the question 'Who wrote and how was the Book of Mormon written?" and help answer a sub question because plagiarism is suspected "Was a Spalding manuscript used in writing the Book of Mormon?" You can poke holes in the evidence, you can present a better reasoning explanation..it doesn't mean I will automatically dismiss the S/R theory because you poke holes in some of the evidence, nor does it mean I will accept another theory that you might think is a better explanation. But as for your criticism that I've created an unfalsifiable argument, and I think this gets back to you thinking that fallacious begging the question/circular reasoning was used, my response is no, you are incorrect that fallacy is not being used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Of course, within the scope of this thread - those witnesses are alrgely irrelevant. We aren't talking about the Book of Mormon, we are talking about the Roman Story in contrast to the later discovery narrative provided in LDS sources. In this case, not only do we have both texts, we also don't have any witnesses who claimed similarities. In lieu of an actual Spalding source which the Book of Mormon plagiarizes, you are now looking for other sources of parallels. And this is the part that I find problematic. The listed parallels between the Roman Story and the later discovery narrative seem contrived, sperficial, and not significant enough to substantiate charges of plagiarism.


And I disagree with you there.

Now, you want to bolster your position - not by an appeal to the texts (which you haven't really discussed at all) but by a hypthetical scenario about the Book of Mormon. And of course, this is also part of the problem - because you aren't really claiming that Joseph plagiarized his discovery narrative from the Roman story - but from this hypothetical second manuscript, which you claims was probably like the Roman story.


uhhhh? ya. I don't see a problem with this.

So, we have this problem of an argument built entirely on hypotheticals. Ultimately, you want to use the parallels between the Roman Story and the discovery narrative to suggest that there are similarities - which in turn (as you suggest) bolsters the witnesses accounts, which in turn bolsters the claim that Joseph plagiarized from this unknown manuscript which was similar to the Roman Story, and so on. So forgive me if I sense a bit of circular reasoning here.


Circular reasoning in and of itself is not faulty. As I said previously all deductive arguments employ circular reasoning to some extent that doesn't make the reasoning faulty. Generally the problem with circular reasoning occurs when a conclusion is based upon a premis/premises which is/are mere assertions or lacks justification. Any conclusion derived from such premises can not be relied upon to be true. The less justification for the premises the less reliable the conclusion is.

When we have quite a number of Spalding witnesses' who say they heard Spalding read to them or they read a particular story often, when we have Howe who appears to be concientous in assuring himself witnesses are truthful and reliable, when no one ever came forward and said the witnesses were lying, when witnesses never claimed that Hurbut misrepresented them, when Hurlbut goes through the effort of locating Spalding's work, when he brings back and hands over to Howe a manuscript which obviously was not used to plagiarize and so is counter productive to him if he were deviously anti-Mormon etc etc. When we note that despite the Roman story obviously not plagiarized from for the Book of Mormon but none the less contains significant parallels in words used, phrasing enough that it indicates a connection between Spalding's work and the Book of Mormon & between the D.N. of Roman story and J. Smith's..all these bits of evidentiary data are used in reaching a best fit theory. This is not begging the question type circular reasoning. And all the evidence for any other theory is pertinent to this theory, because if the data for other theories explain better "how and by whom was the Book of Mormon written then they diminish the S/R theory. However I'm not aware of and that was after reading D. Vogel's arguments on this board, that any other theory does offer a superior explanation.


It's the question to the hypothesis under consideration 'was Spalding's manuscript plagiarized from to write the Book of Mormon?' which drives the search for evidence. And finding parallels between texts is what one would expect by an author, so it is something to look for.
Not really. And this is why you should take a look at the accept methods for this kind of inquiry.


I see nothing in your response which counters my point.


One would expect to find parallelsin phrases and words used between an author's own texts, it is not necessary but one would expect to find that particularly is the subject matter is similar. But if any of those texts where plagiarized from then one might see those parallels carried over. And that is what is found in this case and it is another warrant to support the hypothesis of plagiarism. And yes the "parallels" it does add credibility to the Spalding witnesses' statements..supporting their accusation of plagiarism.
We actually expect to see parallels in phrases and words between any two texts. This is primarly because when two writes write books in a common millieu, they share a language, they share common phrasing, they share a lot of features. In terms of common vocabulary, the Book of Mormon and the Roman story share similarities at about the same frequency as comparing most other books from the same period.


With regards to your last sentence..I disagree with you that the sorts of parallels noted between Book of Mormon and Roman storyh, between D.N of Roman Story and J. Smith are commonly found between authors in same milieu. Sheesh you are so intent on discrediting the S/R theory and refuse to acknowledge that which is obvious. Here are links to Dales' web-site which discuss parallels http://www.solomonspalding.com/bomstudies/spauth.htm
http://www.solomonspalding.com/bomstudies/army02.htm

l The rate at which we find common locutions is also likewise similar. The statistics don't appreciably help your argument here. So just finding common vocabulary, and common phrases has never been accepted in literary studies as evidence of plagiarism without other text based arguments.


Ben it is only one piece of data, the parallels in of of themselves don't make or break the case, they only support the case in this instance.

First of all Ben I don't know all the evidence which exists available and I doubt you do either and it might be that even if I know less that you I might know more crucial evidence than you or I might evaluate evidence better than you or not, and vice versa applies to you as opposed to me.
This isn't the issue. You want to accuse me of not looking at all the evidence - yet there we have Grant Palmer, and Dan Vogel, and Marquardt and other presenting evidence arguing for alternate naturalistic origins of the Book of Mormon which by nature exclude the possibility of the Spalding theory. And yet you ignore them. And when I challenge you, you don't respond to my arguments, but instead attempt to attack an assumed faith based response.


You didn't present their arguments Ben, you presented D. vogel's name as if that makes an argument and I have looked at his argument and I don't accept it, it was lacking in the reasoning for dismissing Spalding witnesses.
I'm not criticizing you for not looking at all the evidence, I'm criticizing you for applying a different criteria to evaluate S/R data than you do for Smith only theory. And I bring your religious views into it, because I believe that is your motivation to support the Smith only theory and oppose the S/R theory. You don't accept the Vogel Smith only theory as being true or most likely, you favor it because it is more in line with your religious beliefs than the S/R theory.

I'm not asking you to not bring up Vogel's position. I am saying that in a discussion which essentially I initiated with Vogel I was open to him presenting evidence and reasoning which would counter the S/R theory and I didn't see it. So I'm not against you presenting evidence for Smith only theory, but don't expect me to be impressed with the Smith only theory by simply giving me Vogel's name.
And I am asking you not bring up my beliefs whatever they are. Both points are really quite immaterial. The Spalding theory is either a good argument or its not without appealing to other theories or beliefs. My point in bringing up Vogel is merely that one does not have to be a believer to not find the Spalding theory tenable. So if we can dispense with these distractions and return to discussing the parallels, I would be quite happy.


Look Ben if you wish to argue the Smith only theory as a counter to the S/R theory do so. I have not focussed on your religious beliefs, I have on occasion brought them up when your criticize how and/or what I evaluate as evidence or when argue the Vogel smith only theory is superior but don't give your reasoning. So my counter to you in these situation is to speculate on your motivation...which entails bringing in your religious beliefs as your motivation to promote the Smith only theory even though it's not a theory you support personally.


What I'm against is you wishing to look at evidence solely piecemeal and exclude other evidence in the evaluation of that piecemeal bit of evidence. So in this case as I argued in my previous post, evidence of parallels does support witnesses statements and is relevant in evaluating their credibility and the reliability of their statements. There is a connection between the evidence presented by the statements and the evidence of parallels. There's a synergism that when considered together rather than simply independently enables one to increase the reliability of each bit of evidence. And it appears you are trying to prevent that because it works against your argument, rather than it being the right thing to do because it's good reasoning.
And what I am opposed to is your priviledging a bad argument on the basis that it has support in other ways. Having a theory doesn't make the argument good. Having a theory doesn't somehow make bad parallels better, or insignificant parallels significant. But this is what you are trying to do. You are avoiding the discussion of the parallels by suggesting that such a discussion is not important given the mountain of other evidence available. It is important, because no matter how many witnesses you have, you cannot show plagiarism except by examining the texts.


I've never said that a discussion on parallels is not important. I haven't done the brunt work, others have. Dale has on his website examples. Again here are the links http://www.solomonspalding.com/bomstudies/spauth.htm
http://www.solomonspalding.com/bomstudies/army02.htm

You are the one dismissing what others have noted. No one can stop you dismissing what others note to be indicative of plagiarism..noted parallels. This is a tangent but your denial reminds me of the Lenny Bruce joke in which he says if you are in bed with another women and your wife walks in... "deny it. Yeah. Just flat out and she'll believe it: "I'm tellin' ya. This chick came downstairs with a sign around her neck 'Lay on Top of Me Or I'll Die.' I didn't know what I was gonna do...."” it seems to me Ben you are denying what is obvious and it is obvious to objective individuals. Those with a vested interest in Mormonism are likely to deny parallels have any significance in the context in which they are found and there is nothing that can prevent their denial.

Ben evidence does not have to be verifiable facts, there just needs to be good justification for acceptance that the information is relevant, reliable and will help with the hypothesis, conclusion, case.
Ok ....

The witnesses' statements for example are evidence.
Unless, as you point out, there isn't good justification that the information is reliable or helps with the hypothesis, the conclusions, or the case - as happens here. Now you may disagree with me, but, until this is established, they aren't good evidence.


The parallels are evidence.
But not until you establish your good justification. Repeating that they are significant parallels doesn't establish this, and until this is established, they aren't useful evidence.


As I said Ben you can deny. However the arguments counter and pro stand on their own and it's up to the listener/reader/audience to determine whether they are convincing or not.

You've presented nothing significant Ben which adequately counters the point of Roger's O.P. You've not given adequate justification for dismissal of noted parallels. You've not given a superior theory to the S/R theory which helps explain "how was the Book of Mormon was written?" for which you supported your theory with reasoning and evidence.
_Uncle Dale
_Emeritus
Posts: 3685
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:02 am

Re: Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

Post by _Uncle Dale »

Markk wrote:...
how the Book of Mormon was written?
...


All I can provide is a possible answer -- as opposed to hundreds
of impossibilities. Just because my my guess is "possible" does not mean
it is the only answer. It may be wrong in part, or in full. But I'll try to answer.

My own views have undergone an evolution over the last three decades. I began
as a faithful Latter Day Saint, who merely had questions about Mormon origins.
I thought it was possible that the Book of Mormon was a 19th century production,
but I had no particular opinion as to where it came from. I began to study
Spalding's writings as a curiosity -- it took many years before I adopted the
Spalding-Rigdon authorship claims as my personal opinion. I suppose that I
finally made that transition in belief in the period between my leaving the
Community of Christ and my hearing of Craig Criddle's investigations. I have
adopted most of his explanations -- so what I say here pretty much speaks
for him as well.

1. Solomon Spalding wrote about the ancient colonization of America by Israelites
and told how the more literate/civilized part of those colonists were exterminated
by degenerate savages who had split off from the main body of the Israelites.

2. Spalding moved to Pittsburgh in 1812 and attempted to sell his pseudo-history,
but was unsuccessful. He spent much of the following year in the home of Mr.
Hugh Wilson, of Washington, PA, revising his Israelite story -- adding in what he
thought were subtle parodies of current religious controversies, disguised as
the beliefs and contentions of his ancient Israelite Americans. Among other things,
he added to his story some references to biblical prophecies and messianic
expectations, thus coming up with the fictional proto-Christian Nephites. Spalding
finished off his story was a visit by St. Thomas to the New World, in which that
apostle brought Christianity to the ancient Americans. However, the savages
exterminated the Christians, ending the apostolic dispensation in old America.

3. By means never precisely disclosed, the farmboy and part-time tanner's apprentice,
young Sidney Rigdon, obtained copies of Spalding's writings. He was interested in
the prophecies Spalding had introduced into his fictional American history, indicating
that America was a "promised land," and that Israelites had built the preColumbian
earthworks and stoneworks of the Americas -- also that Israelites would again
gather in America in the "latter days."

4. Spalding died in PA -- his widow re-submitted one of his fictional stories to the
same Pittsburgh publisher who had rejected its previous draft, and the later draft
was also rejected. This manuscript she took with her to New York, discarding her
late husband's earlier draft(s) of his American pseudo-history.

5. Sidney Rigdon retained the copies (or perhaps discarded rough drafts) of Spalding's
pseudo-history, and, from time to time he read through their contents. He developed
the habit of proofreading and correcting Spalding's poor orthography, spelling and
story development. By the early 1820s Rigdon's preserved Spalding pages contained
as much of his own "corrections" as they did Spalding's original writings.

6. Sidney Rigdon became acquainted with Joseph Smith, Jr. -- probably during the
Palmyra religious revival(s) of the mid-1820s. But Rigdon then moved to Geauga
Co., Ohio and temporarily lost contact with Smith. While in Bainbridge, Ohio, Rigdon
continued to edit and enlarge Spalding's pseudo-history, with Rigdon inserting more
and more "Campbellite" restorationist theology.

7. After his unfortunate trial before Judge Neeley in Chenango Co., NY, the young
Joseph Smith fled westward to escape both the Law and "persecution" from some
of his own former associates in the money-digging business. Smith ended up in
Auburn twp., Geauga Co., Ohio, living among some other former residents of the
Palmyra area. He remained in Auburn for several months, and while there he
renewed his former acquaintance with Sidney Rigdon, who lived a few miles away.
Rigdon shared with Smith the contents of the American pseudo-history, but did
not disclose to Smith that the Nephite story was fiction, originally from Spalding.

8. Smith and Rigdon were both visionaries and both believed themselves, as well
as the other, to be blessed with divine gifts. Smith believed Rigdon possessed what
amounted to a wonderful addition to the Holy Bible. Rigdon believed that Smith was
a true seer, who could add important information to the beliefs and actions of the
extinct Nephites. Together Rigdon and Smith cooperated to expand the "record"
of the extinct Christian Americans.

9. Both Rigdon and Smith believed that Christianity was in a totally apostate condition,
with all of its ministers and theologians playing the role of demonic "hireling priests"
who did nothing but lie, cheat and steal -- totally destroying the Christian gospel and
leading their parishioners down into hell. Both Rigdon and Smith believed that the
"Nephite record" they had been completing would provide a "fulness of the gospel,"
which counteract the terrible apostasy of the Satanic Protestant and Catholic priests,
and thus set the stage for Christ's return (to America, much the same as in 3rd Nephi).

10. But then Smith decided to return to New York. He and Rigdon still had not finalized
plans of how they might share the "Nephite record" with God-fearing people who were
destined to "come out of spiritual Babylon" and initiate the gathering of Israel on the
American contenent. It was late 1826 -- the "Nephite record" in Rigdon's possession
was still far from being a duplicate of the 1830 Book of Mormon. Several unforeseen
developments would serve to alter and expand that text, into something different.

UD
-- the discovery never seems to stop --
_Uncle Dale
_Emeritus
Posts: 3685
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:02 am

Re: Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

Post by _Uncle Dale »

Roger wrote:...
Isn't it possible that Pratt is also getting this "Isthmus of Darien" idea from
a Spalding manuscript?


We can start here:

Darién Gap
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coordinates: [show location on an interactive map] 7°54′N 77°28′W / 7.90°N 77.46°W / 7.90; -77.46

The Darién Gap is a large swath of undeveloped swampland and forest separating Panama (Central America) and Colombia (South America). It measures just over 160 km (99 mi) long and about 50 km (31 mi) wide. It is not possible to cross between South America and Central America by land without passing through the Darién Gap. ...

The geography of the Darién Gap on the Colombian side is dominated primarily by the river delta of the Atrato River, which creates a flat marshland at least 80 km (50 mi) wide, half of this being swampland. The Panamanian side, in sharp contrast, is a mountainous rain forest, with terrain reaching from 60 m (200 ft) MSL) in the valley floors to 1,845 m (6,050 ft) MSL) at the tallest peaks (Cerro Tacarcuna).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari%C3%A9n_Gap


See also...

A New Geographical, Historical, and Commercial Grammar
By William Guthrie, 1783 -- p. 22:
"...Straits of Darien, between N. and S. Am...."


See also...

A Philosophical and Political History of the Settlements and Trade of the Europeans
in the East and West Indies,
1783 -- by Abbe Raynal -- Vol. 3, p. 54:
"Such of those adventurers as had got into the South Sea by the streights of Darien,
took up with the first vessels they found upon the coast..."


See also...

The History of America 1803,
by William Robertson -- p. 75:
"Cortes, indeed, found some persons exactly resembling the white people of Darien,
among the rare and monstrous animals which Montezuma had collected..."


Read through some early volumes mentioning the "white people of the Isthmus of Darien,"
and you may discover something interesting.

UD
-- the discovery never seems to stop --
_Uncle Dale
_Emeritus
Posts: 3685
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:02 am

Re: Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

Post by _Uncle Dale »

Uncle Dale wrote:...
Read through some early volumes
...


This one might be a good start:

Voyages from Asia to America, for completing the discoveries of the North west
coast of America...
by Gerard Fridrikh Miller, London, 1761, p. iv:

...to be much higher than the Mediterranean; because the Nile empties itself
into the latter; the Event, therefore, of a Junction of such vast Bodies
of Water, they dreaded might cause great Devastation by the over-filling
of the Mediterranean, which in all Probability would have laid Egypt entirely
under Water. Besides, as the Turks govern the Country on both Sides the
Red Sea, they would also be Masters of the Passage and levy what exorbitant
Tax they should think proper to demand, in Opposition to all the Powers in
Europe, though united in fighting for this Door to the East-Indies.

Another Project was, that of cutting a Way for sailing from Europe to
Asia, through the narrowest Part of the Streights of Darien; a Neck of Land,
which connects the two Continents of Northern and Southern America together;
but the Execution of this Design must meet with insurmountable Obstacles,
from a Want of Numbers sufficient to accomplish so vast an Enterprise,
as well as Provisions to subsist them during their Labours, was it possible
to bring thither an adequate Number of hands; not to mention the Unhealthiness
of the Climate, and the Fatigue joined with it, would be so...



UD
-- the discovery never seems to stop --
_Uncle Dale
_Emeritus
Posts: 3685
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:02 am

Re: Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

Post by _Uncle Dale »

Uncle Dale wrote:
...through the narrowest Part of the Streights of Darien; a Neck of Land,
which connects the two Continents of Northern and Southern America together;
...


So -- was Solomon Spalding the sort of writer who might refer to the "Straits of Darien"
as a "narrow neck of land?"

I'll leave the answer to that question to others, more expert than I, in such stuff --
but these excerpts may be of interest:

(article) NARROW PASS(AGE) WHICH LED (IN)TO THE (location)

posted his warriors in a narrow passage which led to the city [Oberlin Ms]
caused heaps of them to lie prostrate in the narrow passage [Oberlin Ms]
forcing his march into the city through this narrow passage [Oberlin Ms]
--------------------------------------------------------
and secure the narrow pass which led into the land northward [Alma 52:09 LDS]
by the narrow neck which led into the land northward [Alma 63:05 LDS]
by the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward [Alma 50:34 LDS]
to the narrow passage which led into the land [Mormon 02:29 LDS]
by the narrow pass which led into the land southward. [Mormon 03:05 LDS]



Alma 50:
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/MEDIA/P4/322.JPG

Alma 52:
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/MEDIA/P4/328.JPG

Alma 63:
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/MEDIA/P4/358.JPG

UD
-- the discovery never seems to stop --
_Roger
_Emeritus
Posts: 1905
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:29 am

Re: Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

Post by _Roger »

UD:

So -- was Solomon Spalding the sort of writer who might refer to the "Straits of Darien"
as a "narrow neck of land?"


Probably so. And if Miller & John Spalding can be trusted he apparently did exactly that. But I can hear the rustle of detractors gearing up to say that "narrow neck of land" differs from the "Straits/Isthmus of Darien."

My main question is where is Pratt getting that specific phrase from? How is it that Pratt is qualified to stick his neck out so far as to identify the name of the narrow neck of land and refer to it as being the starting point for the final battle while he's on official business promoting the Book of Mormon? Seems a bit odd that Pratt knows so much about Book of Mormon geography when--apparently--even Joseph Smith didn't. I mean I seriously doubt that the 2009 LDS church headquarters would sanction one of their modern apostles identifying the "narrow neck of land" as being the "Isthmus of Darien" (as if he knows that) and that the final battle started there and ended up in Manchestor while giving a public lecture on the Book of Mormon.... or am I missing something?
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."

- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
_Brackite
_Emeritus
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:12 am

Re: Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

Post by _Brackite »

Benjamin McGuire wrote: Brackite -

On the issue of Chiasmus, there is an underlying concern which I have, which isn't dealt with in these comments. One of these deals with the definition of the term. I prefer to look at chiasmus as a rhetorical figure. Under this assumption, chiasmus is an intentional structuring of the text, and proofs of chiamsus must include not just the ability to reformat the text into the ABCBA type of structure, but also some kind of indicators that the text was intended to be read in such a fashion. I prefer this kind of approach to the more mechanical options which deal with the structure an the ways in which the structure is isolated from the rest of the text (in terms of vocabulary choice and so on).

While it is true that some chiastic structures can be intended purely for aesthetic purposes, the presentation of such a structure would need to be obvious enought that people would be able to see it quite easily. This true of several kinds of poetic structures - particularly in ancient language where they get used more frequently. It would not appear to be the case here.

We might get more mileage from the kind of study that the guys at BYU did where they used a statistical modeling to look at the chiastic structure and distinguish it from random chance (given a range of variables applied to the question including issues involving vocabulary, and so on). But, of course, that requires looking at more context than the simple section involved.

Personally, I prefer to identify clues that indicate intentionality on the part of the author. One of my favorit biblical examples is Psalm 82, for example, which uses a number of ambiguous terms in the text - whose meaning early on doesn't become completely clear until the later part of the chiastic structure is reached, forcing (or allowing) the reader to revisit the first part of the text with a new understanding. I should point out though, that the English translation ruins the effect by resolving the amibuity for us.

In the case of this particular passage, it runs immediately into one major problem. The text itself has a natural break that exists within the proposed structure and disrupts the chiastic structure. The problem is that A and A' while sharing the same phrasing deal with entirely different things, and A' begins a new section in the text - it doesn't complete a previous one. A more complete excerpt from the Spalding text reads:

There is an intelligent omnipotent Being, who is self existant & infinitely good & benevolent -- Matter eternally existed -- He put forth his hand & formed it into such bodies as he pleased -- He presides over the universe & has a perfect knowledge of all things -- From his own spiritual substance he formed seven sons -- These are his principal agents to manage the affairs of his empire -- He formed the bodies of men from matter Into each body he infused a particle of his own spiritual substance, in consequence of which man in his first formation was inclined to benevolence & goodness.

There is also another great inteligent Being who is self existent & possessed of great power but not of Omnipotence -- He is filled with infinite malice against the good Being & exerts all his subtlety & pow to ruin his works -- Seeing the happy situation of man he approached so near as to touch his soul with his deliterious hand -- The poison was immediately defused & contaiminated his passions & appetites -- His reason and understanding received no injury --


Now, from my perspective, there is a natural break in the text there where I have put it. You cannot separate A' from the rest of the discussion that follows it. We have an indentification of a being and then a description of that being, and taking part of that second being's desription and combining it into the description of the first damages any normal reading of the text. My conclusion is that the chiastic structure is forced on the text, is not intended by the author of the text, and so isn't a real chiasmus at all.


Thanks, For Your Answer, Ben!
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
_Benjamin McGuire
_Emeritus
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

Post by _Benjamin McGuire »

Dale writes:
Well, that's your opinion. However, were I to present you with two lengthy texts, with no apparent identifying subject matter included -- one by Gandhi and one by Hitler, I have the strong feeling that you would be able to discern which text came from which writer, merely by studying their language. In comparing one to the other, I think we might speak of "Hitlerish language" and "Gandhish language" -- don't you agree?
No, actually, I disagree. In part because of the extreme example which you use clouds the issue. Suppose, instead of comparing Ghandi and Hitler, we compared Hitler with Richard Walther Darré, or Gustave Le Bon, or Hans F. K. Günther, or Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss, or even Vincent Krassousky, would you be able to distinguish a particular Hitlerish language? I am pretty sure you couldn't.

The problem is that Spalding is a product of his environment, and his literature isn't something which stands inisolation to the rest of the literature of that millieu. So for you to suggest that there is a "Spaldingish language" is to suggest that there is something absolutely unique about his language that distinguishes him from his contemporaries. And this simply isn't the case. And there are lots of distinct issues with such a notion.

This, of course, is why I asked you to produce a list of those elements which you think are distinctly Spaldingish, so that I can show you that they aren't. One of my long term problems with your work in particular Dale, is that it doesn't really recognize anything outside of its narrow window. You can speak of Spaldingish language only because you haven't really looked at any literature contemporary to Spalding. You can talk about the relationship between Joseph Smith's alleged writings and Spaldings writings, but you really can't talk about the relationship between Spalding (and also J.S.) to any of their other contemporaries - and this hole causes a lot of problems with your kind of study.
With Spalding there are some repetitive themes, told and re-told with similar language -- accounts of bloody massacres, accounts of blood staining swords, etc. He was a Revolutionary War veteran and may have seen bloodshed in and after battles. The town he lived in (Cherry Valley, NY) was all but wiped out in a bloody massacre. He probably pondered such things now and then.
And one of the things I have noticed is that other books describing the revolutionary war also have a very high similarity in langage to Spalding's work. Ramsay's works, Warren's books - these kinds of texts have a much greater conenction in terms of language to Spalding than does the Book of Mormon - and this is one of the reasons why I am suggesting that there is no such thing as "Spaldingish language" - there is a shared language found in all sorts of works which describes certain kinds of things, and it is this language which Spalding employs, but it doesn't originate with Spalding, it isn't unique to Spalding, and so I don't think it can appropriately be called "Spaldingish".
I can discern Spalding texts, if they are unadulterated and are at least a few paragraphs in length. Test me on that, if you wish.
I don't doubt that you are highly familiar with everything Spalding wrote.
Post Reply