So what? The problems I listed still remain - and are a reasonable basis to challenge their credibility. Why is it that your witnesses all use the same concepts and even the same language? They all have a connection through Hurlbut. That seems way more than a coincidence, wouldn't you say? And yet you don't want to apply the same standards here as you use with the Book of Mormon/Roman Story. Why not?
No they don't "all have a connection through Hurlbut."
As you well know there is plenty of additional non-Hurlbut testimony supporting his. What they do have, however, is a connection to Spalding. And that is much more important than a connection to Hurlbut. You don't deny (I assume) that these people actually knew Spalding and knew him well. See Hurlbut couldn't just pick people out of the woodwork... he had to actually track down people who actually knew Spalding well. Then, according to you, he had to extract statements from them in which he is implanting false memories--stuff that never happened--into their brains. And he had to do this with every one of the eight Conneaut witnesses--they were all duped by Hurlbut, every one of them duped by the same overlapping stuff that never happened (!) and yet none of them later admits that Hurlbut manipulated their testimonies and then, remarkably, unsolicited testimony continues to come out of the woodwork for half a century more that just happens to support all those false memories long after Hurlbut had left the scene! Geez what a fortunate guy he must have been!
Sorry Ben, it's much more reasonable to conclude that the S/R witnesses--all of them--had simply heard Spalding read from a ms that closely resembled the BOM--just like they claim.
Yes, but you will agree with me that finding parallels is nothing special. After all, nearly all texts use the words: and, to, the, is, from, of ... do we think that parallels based on this kind of comparison are signficant? I would suggest that you don't. What is the basis that you use for a parallel that is significant and one that isn't?
I do not agree that finding parallels is nothing special. If it was "nothing special" we wouldn't even be discussing it. Finding parallels makes us take notice and compells us to look for a possible connection. Do all parallels indicate borrowing? No. On the other hand, are some parallels evidence of the borrowing that did occur? Absolutely. So parallels are indeed something special. More analysis is then usually required to determine if there is a legitimate connection.
Yes but the point is only Spalding was previously associated with Joseph Smith. As far as I am aware, only Spalding. There are certainly parallels to View of the Hebrews, for example, but people in 1833 weren't accusing Joseph Smith of borrowing from Ethan Smith. They were accusing him of borrowing from Spalding.
But this is all irrelevant. The association is irrelevant. You keep thinking that it somehow adds some weight to the argument - but what if they were mistaken (for lots of reasons). And then we still do in fact have reliability issues. You can't keep using these witnesses until you resolve these problems - and simply suggesting that you personally trust them make work for you personally, but it certainly doesn't work for anyone else ....
It is not irrelevant. It is the additional data that needs to be taken into consideration after one notices parallels. The fact that witnesses associated Spalding with Smith before Smith produced his 1838 DN that parallels Spalding does add weight to the argument. I understand that you don't want it to, but it does.
I addressed the witnesses above. Your case against them is ridiculously weak. Essentially you are parroting Brodie who claims the testimony is not credible because the details agree too much! That is ridiculous on it's face. If all there was to consider was the testimony gathered by Hurlbut, then that criticism might be stronger, but there is additional, unsolicited supporting testimony. Hurlbut did not implant false memories.
Fine. Putting aside the testimony for the moment, why don't you cite what you believe is the best example of parallels to Smith's discovery narrative and we'll compare it with Spalding's and see if one has closer parallels.
Because I am not in the business of parallelomania.
Or perhaps because you can't find anything that parallels the discovery narrative closer than Spalding?
Actually, I have provided in this thread, and in the article which has been linked, numerous parallels. I don't want to focus on finding more. I want to focus on looking at the ones that you have proposed - that you think are significant. I responded to some of those going from Dale's pages that you linked. Why don't we start there.
I already commented on your commentary from Dale's pages. See my posts beginning on page 7 of this thread. Your criticism had little to do with the actual parallels and more to do with being nit-picky about Dale's observations.
Dale notes the following: (bold is mine)
True enough. If we were reviewing this situation in a court of law, your point
would be pivotal in our reaching a decision of whether or not any plagiarism was
involved. However, some folks suggest that the two texts resemble each other
only to the degree that any two unrelated documents might show similarities.
In other words, that the resemblances are trivial and due to coincidence.
On the other hand, I have seen LDS arguments against the Smith-Rigdon
authorship theory, and in those arguments the point is made that there is
"some slight resemblance" in the themes and language used by Spalding,
when compared with the Book of Mormon. Therefore the entire Spalding-Rigdon thesis
was built upon huge exaggerations that "slight resemblance" as recalled by
Spalding's old neighbors, when coached by D. P. Hurlbut in the summer of 1833.
Now, EITHER the resemblance in Spalding's writings was strong enough to
make some of his old associates equate those writing with the Book of Mormon, OR else
the resemblances are NOT present, and those old associates were lying
through their teeth from the year 1832, until Hurlbut met with them in 1833.
I cannot fathom how Mormons can have it both ways:
1. That the resemblance is insignificant -- all due to minor coincidences
2. That the resemblance gave rise to the "Spaulding Lie" in the first place.
What study methodology might we utilize, to determine which of these two
answers offers the best explanation of things?
UD
Your response to Dale is what I find ironic. You criticize us for--in your estimation--using circular reasoning--which I strongly contest--nevertheless that is your argument, and then you yourself employ circular reasoning here: (bold mine)
There are obvious resemblances. But what you are putting here is not relevant. The question is whether or not the resemblances are sufficient to make the kind of claims that have been made. I and say that they are not sufficient, and I have over the past several years provided quite a bit of data as to why I hold that belief.
You simply illustrate Dale's point when you note that there are "obvious resemblances" but then attempt to downplay that concession by claiming that they are apparently not "obvious" enough to "make the kind of claims that have been made" (!) Why? Because you've already decided not to accept the claims that have been made! If that's not circular, I don't know what is. The fact is the claims were made before the resemblances came to be. Therefore, the "obvious resemblances" support the prior claims.
Like Dale, I cannot fathom how Mormons can have it both ways.