Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn:

I'm pressed for time at the moment and have not read all the posts on this thread yet, but I do notice you keep harping about the lost tribes thing....

I am approaching the subject based upon what a person in 1812 to 1833 and even to the present would understand when someone mentioned the lost tribes of Israel.

Do you understand the points I have tried to establish?

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

Lehi was supposed to be of the tribe of Joseph -- a northerner,
and thus heir to Divine promises given to some of the Israelites
who were not of Judah (not ancestors of the Jews).
UD

Lehi was actually of the tribe of Manasseh . There is no actual tribe of Joseph. Joseph received a dual portion due to Reuban losing his birthright through transgression and his legacy is through the sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. Lehi had lived in or near Jerusalem all of his life according to Nephi and evidently did not know his ancestry until he obtained the brass plates and traced his geneology back to Joseph. This is not a lost tribes theme at all.

Glenn

[_MCB]

That's OK, Dale. I can just do a hand-count chapter by chapter of those Calvinistic buzz-words. From those two groups of chapters I previously selected for intensive study.

[_marg]

The lost tribes, according to those witnesses, was the main theme of Spalding's story. If those witnesses were remembering correctly, that should have been the main historical theme of the Book of Mormon, not a "bit of a mention" since all eight of the Conneaut witnesses averred that the historical parts of the Book of Mormon read identical, the same as, verbatim, to Spalding's story. If you have some plausible explanation of how all eight of those witnesses could have missed a story shift so great, i.e. the lost tribes of Israel, of which there are ten, to a small group of people fleeing Jerusalem, please enlighten me.

Glenn

Glenn... Spalding also discussed this book with them so their understanding of what his manuscript was about came from him as well. The main theme that some lost tribes came to America, does not have to be excessively discussed for the witnesses to appreciate that was the initial main theme of the entire spalding book.

The thing is Glenn..it doesn't make sense that all the witnesses remembered incorrectly that various parts of Spalding's book was contained in the Book of Mormon. The "false memory" argument of all the witnesses simply doesn't fly. If you want to say they must have been lying..that would make more sense.

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn... Spalding also discussed this book with them so their understanding of what his manuscript was about came from him as well. The main theme that some lost tribes came to America, does not have to be excessively discussed for the witnesses to appreciate that was the initial main theme of the entire spalding book.

The thing is Glenn..it doesn't make sense that all the witnesses remembered incorrectly that various parts of Spalding's book was contained in the Book of Mormon. The "false memory" argument of all the witnesses simply doesn't fly. If you want to say they must have been lying..that would make more sense.

Marge, it does not matter whether it was a false memory or a lie. You can take your choice. The fact of the matter is that the lost tribes coming to the Americas and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians was the main theme of Spalding's tale. All eight witnesses said that the historical part of the Book of Mormon matched that of Spalding's story almost word for word, but the lost tribes are not but a passing mention in the Book of Mormon. The witnesses are in error on one of their main points.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Lehi had lived in or near Jerusalem all of his life according to Nephi and evidently did not know his ancestry
...

So that's why his son set up a temple in America and preempted
the rights of the Tribe of Levi in the priesthood? Because they
did not know their own ancestry? Ridiculous.

When the Maccabees took over the high priesthood of Judah,
after their revolt from the Seleucids, they knew they were not
Zadokites -- and therefore not entitled to the high priesthood
entrusted to Zadok's lineage. But they also knew of an obscure
reference to a priest of Salem in antiquity, and drew upon that
tradition in order to maintain their theocracy. I'm half-convinced
the James, the brother of Jesus, resorted to the same non-Levite
high priesthood in Jerusalem, just prior to the fall of the temple.

Be all of that as it may, it is ludicrous to imagine that an Israelite
of pre-exilic times did not know what tribe he and his relatives
were from. Next thing I know, somebody will be opining that
Laban did not know his ancestry either.

My wife and I used to teach English to Arabs studying in the
United States. They knew the family history back 100 generations
and knew their relationship to Arabs as distant as Morocco and
Yemen. They knew the distinguishing features of every clan and
sub-clan -- the dialects of dozens of tribes who all spoke the
same language, and yet preserved subtle differences. They
could tell an outsider by how he held his coffee cup and by
how he laughed at a joke.

Son, what fashion is this?
- Harith, Father.

- What manner of Harith?
A Beni Wejh sherif.

And is he Harith?
No, Father, English.

Lawrence of Arabia

Lehi did not know he was an Israelite? Did not know his family?
Did not know his clan? Did not know his dialect? Did not know
his accent? Did not know his mother's ethnic cooking? Did not
know whether his Yahwist religion was northern or southern?

Of course not! He is a fictional character in a cardboard world!

UD

[_marg]

Marge, it does not matter whether it was a false memory or a lie. You can take your choice.

Why would they have a false memory of the Lost tribes? Where are they picking that up from.. Hurlbut..the Book of Mormon? And why would they lie about Lost Tribes if as you say it's not in the Book of Mormon. I think they correctly remembered and honestly said that Spalding's book was about a few Lost Israelite tribes getting to and their struggles in America.

As far as the main character not being from a Lost tribe, none the less he was from an ancient Israelite tribe which existed at the same time as the alleged Lost tribes. The Conneaut witnesses may not know as you do that Lehi did not descend from one of the Lost Tribes. Spalding may have had other tribes arrive which the Book of Mormon writers changed to only one. The witnesses only say that of the content within the Book of Mormon the historical parts were the same as in Spalding's book, they don't mention what parts Spalding's book had that wasn't in the Book of Mormon.

[_GlennThigpen]

...
Lehi had lived in or near Jerusalem all of his life according to Nephi and evidently did not know his ancestry
...

So that's why his son set up a temple in America and preempted
the rights of the Tribe of Levi in the priesthood? Because they
did not know their own ancestry? Ridiculous.

UD

14 And it came to pass that my father, Lehi, also found upon the plates of brass a genealogy of his fathers; wherefore he knew that he was a descendant of Joseph; yea, even that Joseph who was the son of Jacob, who was sold into Egypt, and who was preserved by the hand of the Lord, that he might preserve his father, Jacob, and all his household from perishing with famine.

1 Nephi, Chapter 5.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Glenn:

I am approaching the subject based upon what a person in 1812 to 1833 and even to the present would understand when someone mentioned the lost tribes of Israel.

Do you understand the points I have tried to establish?

Yes, I get your point, Glenn. You did not address my question at all. How do YOU explain the Martin Harris quote?

[_GlennThigpen]

Marge, it does not matter whether it was a false memory or a lie. You can take your choice.

Why would they have a false memory of the Lost tribes? Where are they picking that up from.. Hurlbut..the Book of Mormon? And why would they lie about Lost Tribes if as you say it's not in the Book of Mormon. I think they correctly remembered and honestly said that Spalding's book was about a few Lost Israelite tribes getting to and their struggles in America.

The lost tribes and the American Indians had been a popular theme since the 1600's. Ethan Smith's book, "View of the Hebrews", published first in 1823 and again in 1825 revived that theme and was a popular book. This is a possible source of memory confabulation.

As far as the main character not being from a Lost tribe, none the less he was from an ancient Israelite tribe which existed at the same time as the alleged Lost tribes. The Conneaut witnesses may not know as you do that Lehi did not descend from one of the Lost Tribes. Spalding may have had other tribes arrive which the Book of Mormon writers changed to only one. The witnesses only say that of the content within the Book of Mormon the historical parts were the same as in Spalding's book, they don't mention what parts Spalding's book had that wasn't in the Book of Mormon.

The Spalding saga was reported by four of the witnesses to be about the lost tribes being the ancestors of the American Indians.

The Book of Mormon theme is about a small group of people led away from Jerusalem to escape the coming prophesied destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Entirely different themes.

The Spalding story had no religious material according to the witnesses. In other words, it was entirely historical. The lost tribes would be a historical part, and the main part of his story. And they all agreed that the historical part was the same as, and at least two witnesses used the word "verbatim". And in that story, you would expect to find some kind of account of those tribes being led from their exile in Chaldea to the Americas.

If you take them at their word, you would expect to see that in the Book of Mormon also. Is it there?

Glenn