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

[_Uncle Dale]

...
The book of Lehi likely contained a connection to the lost tribes
...

That is my conclusion as well -- but I cannot prove it.

Martin Harris would have been a key witness in this regard,
as he reportedly knew the contents of that "lost" text --
and he of course knew the contents of 1st & 2nd Nephi, as
published in 1830. A few members of the Hale family were
also in a position to know whether the lost contents matched
up very closely with the 1830 1st & 2nd Nephi. However,
none of these folks have provided even a summary of what
the lost section contained, much less a comparison with the
narrative published in its place, in 1830.

To my way of thinking, the lost pages must have contained
some explanation of the origin of Zarahemla and of those who
came from ancient Palestine to establish that colony. I am
not at all convinced that a royal prince named "Mulek" was
the founder of the Israelite city-state -- but, for convenience
sake we might call them the Israelite "Mulekites," -- a people
of unknown tribal affiliation, presumably departing from the land
of Jerusalem at an early date.

How did these people that we call "Mulekites" leave Palestine,
and by what means and course of travel did they reach the
ancient Americas?

The Book of Mormon does not tell us their story, nor does it
refer to them in ways that facilitate our discovering much about
them -- other than the fact that they do not seem to have
been a particularly religious people, intent upon preserving the
Hebrew language and scriptures.

When missionaries Smith and Hyde arrived in Conneaut at the
beginning of 1832, they did not have that lost "Book of Lehi"
with them. So far as I can tell, they made no reference to its
story. And yet its replacement narrative (1st & 2nd Nephi,
Jacob, etc.) was enough to stir up local memories of stories
spun by Mr. Spalding. That is how the authorship claims began.

I can only wonder what those same Conneaut witnesses might
have reported, in response to seeing the actual "Book of Lehi."
Unfortunately, that did not happen and now can never happen.

UD

[_Roger]

Glenn:

I notice this:

--in what way would you have expected their statements to turn out any different than they did?

You lose the logic when you say "if".

Your failure to address the question seems to be an indication that you can't decide exactly how you would have expected their statements to be any different if Spalding's novel originally contained a lost tribes account. Neither can I.

[_Roger]

Responding to what I wrote to Glenn, Dan writes:

Like I said--desperate!

Your failure to respond to the posts I have addressed to you and instead take ad hom pot-shots from posts addressed to others is duly noted.

[_marg]

Responding to what I wrote to Glenn, Dan writes:

Like I said--desperate!

Your failure to respond to the posts I have addressed to you and instead take ad hom pot-shots from posts addressed to others is duly noted.

Yes, I second that duly noted.

[_Roger]

UD:

That is my conclusion as well -- but I cannot prove it.

Of course not. The evidence is gone. But neither can Dan or Glenn prove theirs.

Martin Harris would have been a key witness in this regard,
as he reportedly knew the contents of that "lost" text --
and he of course knew the contents of 1st & 2nd Nephi, as
published in 1830.

Exactly. Which is what makes his assertion about what the angel told him so interesting.

I can only wonder what those same Conneaut witnesses might have reported, in response to seeing the actual "Book of Lehi." Unfortunately, that did not happen and now can never happen.

What I find interesting is Pratt's explanation that Ben acknowledges but can't say where he got the information:

As far as I can tell, he offered it as his own theory. Certainly he never claimed revelation as his source.

All the best.

[_Roger]

Glenn:

The do a google for "View of the Hebrews" and read up a bit. That will give you a better idea of what the people in Ohio would more than likely expect from a story about the lost tribes.

I have View of the Hebrews. Why do you keep erroneously assuming I have not been exposed to certain materials and then pontificating about it?

Have you read B.H. Robert's on VOTH?

Like I said, the Conneaut witnesses were NOT into the Book of Mormon like you are. They did not view it as sacred scripture. They did not believe its characters were real people. They may or may not have thought it plausible that the American Indians were descended from "Jews or the lost tribes" but contrary to your conclusions, they were not going to see a bunch of similarities between Spalding and the Book of Mormon only to then conclude there was nothing to it, because the Book of Mormon contains no lost tribes motif.

I don't think I can make it any plainer.

All the best.

[Bedlamite]

...
I have View of the Hebrews.
...

I was never able to find any mention of Ethan Smith, nor his
writings, in the Conneaut area newspapers. The Warren
Trump of Fame mentioned that Pittsburgh papers were
being read in eastern Ohio well before 1812, however.

Here is one example of what the Conneaut people might have
been reading that year -- if a copy circulated as far north as
the Lake Erie shore villages:

. . THE AMERICAN INDIANS
DESCENDED FROM THE ISRAELITES.

THE following curious and interesting account is taken from "The History of the American Indians," by James Adair, Esq. who was a trader with the Indians, and resided among them forty years. He sets out with the hypothesis, that the Indians are descended from the ancient Israelites, which he proceeds to establish by running a parallel between them in several instances. To what degree of credit the arguments are entitled, the reader will judge for himself.

In proof of the Americans being thus descended, he adduces the following arguments: -- Their division into tribes; their worship of Jehovah; their notions of a theocracy; their belief in the ministration of angels; their language and dialects; their manner of counting time; their prophets and high priests; their festivals, fasts, and religious rites; their daily sacrifice; their ablutions and annointings; their laws of uncleanliness; their abstinence from unclean things; their marriages, divorces, and punishment of adultery; their several punishments; their cities of refuge; their purifications, and ceremonies preparatory; their ornaments; their manner of curing the sick; their burial of the dead; their mourning for their dead; their raising seed to a deceased brother; their choice of names, adapted to their circumstances...

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA ... htm#P6-201

Published by Silas Engles -- remember him?

Also of interest is the discovery that Solomon Spalding re-told the tale of a
Persian Emperor (Perozes I) becoming entrapped with his army in an enemy's
camouflaged canal. While the American writer might have copied the fanciful
account from the classical histories of Procopius of Caesarea, he probably
lifted the "stratagem" from Sect. 17 of Menasseh ben Israel's 1650 Hope of
Israel, a tract dealing with the "ten lost tribes" and the "Naphthalites"
(whose wanderings an early European cartographer traced to the Siberian
side of the Behring Straits -- in close proximity to the missionizing of the
Christian Apostle, St. Thomas) --


http://olivercowdery.com/texts/1650hope.htm#pg21b

Then again, I've heard that Solomon Spalding had no interest in any
stories about lost Israelite tribes or Naphthalite battle stratagems.

???

UD

[_Roger]

UD wrote:

Published by Silas Engles -- remember him?

Coincidence! I'll bet Ben could find a hundred other publications by Silas Engles!

[_MCB]

It was a pervasive theory, originally designed to humanize the Natives. The Book of Mormon, served to again dehumanize them, by dehumanizing the Jews. I would love to post a quote from Emanuel Swedenborg, but I am tired of the whole subject. Maybe someone else can do it.

And the debate goes on.

It is amazing that they assume we are not Mormon because of ignorance.

[_Uncle Dale]

UD wrote:

Published by Silas Engles -- remember him?

Coincidence! I'll bet Ben could find a hundred other publications by Silas Engles!

Well, old Silas did publish a paper in Pittsburgh that made occasional
mention of Sidney Rigdon -- but that was well after his The Pioneer
failed, and Silas decided to give up Frontier Literature for Frontier Politics.

UD