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

[_GlennThigpen]

...
The lost tribes theme is missing in the Book of Mormon.
...

Certainly you know that there were pre-1830 published writings
that identified the Americas as a promised land, for the fulfillment
of the biblical promises made to the Joseph tribes.

That is also LDS doctrine. I do not understand how a Mormon
who has attended even a few weeks of meetings could miss
knowing that important tenet.

But it is not purely LDS.

You have mentioned Ethan Smith --- who argued that the
biblical blessings and promises would be fulfilled by transporting
the American Indians to Jerusalem, to their inherit that land.

But Mordacai M. Noah, Elias Boudinot and several other important
pre-1830 writers insisted that America itself was the Land of
Promise, in which those biblical blessings would be fulfilled.

Columbus himself held to that doctrine -- it is very much pre-1830.

Again -- it need not be that ALL OF THE ISRAELITE TRIBES gather
to Zion (Jackson County, in America) -- only that SOME of their
descendants do that, in order to fulfill prophecy.

The Book of Mormon is about SOME OF THEIR DESCENDANTS
taking part in the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

Thus, the Book of Mormon is deeply concerned with the fate of
the descendants of Abraham, and particularly of Joseph.

The Joseph tribes are "lost."

If Joseph Smith, Jr.'s patriarchal blessing says he is of Joseph
lineage, then the founder of the Mormon Church is himself a
member of part of the Lost Tribes of Israel.

If your patriarchal blessing says that you are of Ephraim's lineage,
then YOU are a member of part of the Lost Tribes of Israel.

If my LDS neighbor's blessing say that he (a Hawaiian) is of
Manasseh lineage, then HE is a member of the Lost Tribes.

The Book of Mormon may not tell the story of each and every
member of those Lost Tribes, but its entire reason for being
rests upon the assertion (lie?) that it is the Stick of Ephraim.

UD

Dale, there is nothing in your post which addresses the point I am trying to make. What would a person living in 1832 expect of a story about the lost tribes coming to America and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians?
Did Alexander Campbell detect a lost tribes theme in the Book of Mormon?
Did Adam Bently detect a lost tribes theme in the Book of Mormon?
Has any non LDS that you can recall read the Book of Mormon and described it as a lost tribes book? From the nineteenth century. From this century?
A small group of people, of whom we can ascertain the lineage of probably less than a dozen doe not make a story of even one tribe.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Glenn:

I regret to inform you... your horse is dead.

[_Roger]

Glenn:

John Miller. long dead wrote:
John Miller: I. . .find in it [the Book of Mormon] the writings of Solomon Spalding, from beginning to end. . .Many of the passages in the Mormon book are verbatim from Splading, and other in part.

Which is not the same thing as saying "the whole thing is a verbatim copy." It's also not the same thing as saying the whole thing is an exhaustive exposé on every lost member of every lost tribe.

Aaron Wright, long dead wrote:
From his draft letter: "I also contemplated reading his history but never saw it in print untill I saw the Book of Mormon where I find much of the history and the names verbatim"

And of course as can easily be seen, Aron says "much of the history" and the only thing he notices "verbatim" are the names, presumably some of the names as mentioned also by the other witnesses.

As I said, your horse is long dead, Glenn.

[_marg]

The above statement shows that you are having difficulty following the subtleties and nuances of my (and Glenn’s) position. You get stuck on the word “prove”, when clearly my statement was about directionality of interpretation. When I say I’m not trying to “prove”, I mean I’m not arguing false memory theory demonstrates (proves) the Conneaut witnesses were wrong. You would like for me to argue that way, but I haven’t. My argument comes from the other direction. If I conclude the Mormon witnesses’ testimonies are accurate, then the Conneaut witnesses were wrong, no matter the explanation. False memory theory provides a possible explanation for what happened.

Dan once again...false memory theory does not provide a remote probability explanation. With overall consensus from the Conneaut witnesses that they recognized and remembered some key features from Spalding's work present in the Book of Mormon, coupled with their frequents discussions with Spalding on his work as well as their frequent hearing or reading his work, along with them all being mentally healthy mature adults at the time including when questioned later, as well as there being no pressure on them to lie nor any sort of pressure to manipulate their affidavits...there is no basis to warrant that they memory was faulty, manipulated on those things they say they clearly remembered.

You say : " If I conclude the Mormon witnesses’ testimonies are accurate, then the Conneaut witnesses were wrong, no matter the explanation.

That's fine Dan..but "false memory" of all the witnesses is not remotely probable an explanation. Brodie got away with it, because she argued the witnesses only heard or read Spalding's work once. We know that is not what the witnesses say happened. And sure if someone only heard a story once, there is a strong probability they'd get confused on what they remembered 20 years later. But again that wasn't the situation with the Conneaut witnesses. So if your reasoning is that you accept the Book of Mormon witnesses statements of the translation process .with his head in the hat and therefore on that basis reject that Smith & co could possibly have used a manuscript ...then that's your argument. Bringing in false memories is not warranted and it's obvious the reason you are bringing it in, is simply to make your argument appear stronger than it is and to not open the door to accusing them all of lying or conspiring.

Your argument is very weak and you probably appreciate this. If you are relying on the credibility of the Book of Mormon witnesses to reject the Conneaut witnesses you can't get a much weaker argument than that. Sure I'll be willing to shift focus and get into why the Book of Mormon witnesses are not credible, nor reliable witnesses ..in another post..not today though.

As I said, you are only quibbling about Loftus. Your insistence that her studies have to exactly replicate the experience of the Conneaut witnesses in order to be applicable is silly. It’s not hard to find examples on the internet where Loftus’s experiments (and other memory experiments) are used to generalize about memory per se. The purpose of conducting such experiments is to gather data that can be used to generalize about other similar situations, especially ones that can’t be duplicated in experimental situations.

[/quote]

This is from my previous post to Glenn: "Dr. Ramachandran makes an excellent comment to Loftus which applies to our discussion. It's right at the beginning of the video. I'll quote: " Like you study memory, I study perception and vision. What strikes me about human memory in addition to what you said about the fallibility is how extraordinarily reliable it is. It’s astonishing how good our memory is. I can say the same thing about perception. I can produce illusions which violate common sense. And then you find out what causes the illusion. But this doesn’t prove that vision is highly fallible. It proves under ordinary circumstances it’s extremely good. But using contrived stimulus I can produce an illusion which illuminates the mechanisms of perception. "

And that's what I've been pointing out to you(Glenn) and Dan. Under particular contrived conditions one can produce studies showing memory fallibility but that doesn't mean generally under all conditions memory is unreliable. As he points out it only proves under those particular conditions memory is fallible."

On the one hand Dan you say you aren't arguing using false memory theory..that the reason you reject the Conneaut witnesses is because you accept the Book of Mormon witnesses. You write: "If I conclude the Mormon witnesses’ testimonies are accurate, then the Conneaut witnesses were wrong, no matter the explanation." but then on the other you keep sliding in the false memory theory as additional reason to reject their statements.

Has it occurred to you Dan that your logic might be weak at best on this..that there is a high probability I'm not talking possibility that the Book of Mormon witnesses are not truthful? Do you really believe their statements for example in the Book of Mormon? Do those statements sound like honest reliable statements to you? Leaving out the claims to the supernatural, they all testify to some plates, but where are those plates so that we can confirm their claims? Where are some independent objective individuals who can confirm those plates existed? Why do you assume those people are honest? On what basis?

Your whole rejection of the Conneaut witnesses boils down to hinging on the credibility of a small group of closely connected individuals with a vested interest in a scam and you believe them. As I said before I don't think your argument could get much weaker, those witnesses have to be prime examples of untrustworthy, unreliable witnesses for many reasons. You need a stronger argument against the conneaut witnesses than what you've come up with..at least to be a well reasoned argument from the facts. And as I've pointed out to you and Glenn.. false memory, implanted memory, confused memory doesn't cut it given the consensus and particulars involved in the Conneaut witnesses experience.

(I will leave the board for a few days)

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn:

John Miller. long dead wrote:
John Miller: I. . .find in it [the Book of Mormon] the writings of Solomon Spalding, from beginning to end. . .Many of the passages in the Mormon book are verbatim from Spalding, and other in part.

Which is not the same thing as saying "the whole thing is a verbatim copy." It's also not the same thing as saying the whole thing is an exhaustive exposé on every lost member of every lost tribe.

Roger, go back and read the quotes of those witnesses again. One after another they pony up to the trough and opine that the Book of Mormon reads from one end to the other almost exactly the same as the Spalding manuscript except for the religious parts. But there is no lost tribes theme in the Book of Mormon. There is no lost tribe theme in the Book of Mormon. The theme is of a single extended family that escapes from Jerusalem to escape the upcoming Babylon captivity. If the Book of Mormon is anywhere substantially like the Spalding manuscript that is supposed to be a story of the lost tribes coming to America and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians, anyone picking up that book and reading it should be able to identify that motif immediately. But I have read or heard of no one doing so. Can you cite me an instance of anyone reading the Book of Mormon and exclaiming, that it is a lost tribes story?

In fact that is one of the unparallels that has been pointed out between the View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon.

Aaron Wright, long dead wrote:
From his draft letter: "I also contemplated reading his history but never saw it in print untill I saw the Book of Mormon where I find much of the history and the names verbatim"

And of course as can easily be seen, Aron says "much of the history" and the only thing he notices "verbatim" are the names, presumably some of the names as mentioned also by the other witnesses.

Roger, "much of the history and the names" are not separated. John Miller says many of the passages are verbatim also.

As I said, your horse is long dead, Glenn.

So you say, but you keep naying.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...The theme is of a single extended family that escapes from Jerusalem to escape the upcoming Babylon captivity.
...

For what reason? Just because they were the only decent
people in the Land of Jerusalem? Laman and Lemuel deserved
"to escape the upcoming Babylon captivity," because they were
such righteous, God-fearing boys?

No -- they are preserved so that blessings and promises made
to part of the "Lost Tribes" could be fulfilled in Zion (America).

If the book was merely about "escape," then the Manassehites
could have escaped to Egypt (as did Jeremiah, taking with him
children of Zedekiah).

The Lehites escape so as to bring the lineage of Joseph to
the Land of Promise -- and to set the foundation of Zion, so
that their descendants (the Lamanites) can possess the land
during the seventh and final dispensation.

America is the Land of Promise to the tribes of Joseph --
a large part of the "Lost Tribes" -- so important, in fact,
that the northern kingdom was generally called "Ephraim."

Have the Mormons neglected to teach these things to their
children? If so, then the Reorganized Saints will have fertile
ground in which to plant educational seeds on this doctrine.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

...The theme is of a single extended family that escapes from Jerusalem to escape the upcoming Babylon captivity.
...

For what reason? Just because they were the only decent
people in the Land of Jerusalem? Laman and Lemuel deserved
"to escape the upcoming Babylon captivity," because they were
such righteous, God-fearing boys?

No -- they are preserved so that blessings and promises made
to part of the "Lost Tribes" could be fulfilled in Zion (America).

If the book was merely about "escape," then the Manassehites
could have escaped to Egypt (as did Jeremiah, taking with him
children of Zedekiah).

The Lehites escape so as to bring the lineage of Joseph to
the Land of Promise -- and to set the foundation of Zion, so
that their descendants (the Lamanites) can possess the land
during the seventh and final dispensation.

America is the Land of Promise to the tribes of Joseph --
a large part of the "Lost Tribes" -- so important, in fact,
that the northern kingdom was generally called "Ephraim."

Have the Mormons neglected to teach these things to their
children? If so, then the Reorganized Saints will have fertile
ground in which to plant educational seeds on this doctrine.

UD

Dale, I cannot find anything in your post pertinent to the question of whether any person reading the Book of Mormon would have detected a lost tribes theme in the Book of Mormon like the one posited by Ethan Smith in the View of the Hebrews. Can you point me to any article from your personal collection where anyone in the 1832 through any time up to the present has read the Book of Mormon and declared that it was about the lost tribes?

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...Can you point me to any article from your personal collection where anyone in the 1832 through any time up to the present has read the Book of Mormon and declared that it was about the lost tribes?

Tell me the story narrated in the lost "Book of Lehi" and I can
answer that question.

It was not to the advantage of the Conneaut witnesses to say
that Mr. Spalding's story was about Israelites traveling by land
through Siberia to the Behring Straits, and then over into
America to become the Indians -- and yet, several people who
knew of Spalding's writings said just that.

If D.P. Hurlbut was implanting that false memory into their
minds, he was working counter to his own purposes.

The testimony does make sense, however, if the various
witnesses had indeed read a Spalding "Israelite" story which
greatly resembled the first part of the 1830 Book of Mormon.

My theory is that the original eight witnesses (and some of
the subsequent witnesses, such as Erastus Rudd and the Rev.
Abner Jackson) read Spalding's "Book of Lehi," in which the
wandering Israelites did indeed come to America to found
the city of Zarahemla. They then saw in the Book of Mormon
a very similar story -- but one "pared down" to a narrative
centered on the Lehites -- one "pared down" to eliminate
most of the "Mulekite" migration story.

It is only a theory -- and you can reject it. That is your right.

Now, if you want me to PROVE the theory, as unassailable
fact, we will have to start by examining either the lost
"Manuscript Found," or the lost "Book of Lehi."

That is, unless you can come up with your own proof, to
convince me that my theory should not be researched.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

...Can you point me to any article from your personal collection where anyone in the 1832 through any time up to the present has read the Book of Mormon and declared that it was about the lost tribes?

Tell me the story narrated in the lost "Book of Lehi" and I can
answer that question.

It was not to the advantage of the Conneaut witnesses to say
that Mr. Spalding's story was about Israelites traveling by land
through Siberia to the Behring Straits, and then over into
America to become the Indians -- and yet, several people who
knew of Spalding's writings said just that.

If D.P. Hurlbut was implanting that false memory into their
minds, he was working counter to his own purposes.

The testimony does make sense, however, if the various
witnesses had indeed read a Spalding "Israelite" story which
greatly resembled the first part of the 1830 Book of Mormon.

My theory is that the original eight witnesses (and some of
the subsequent witnesses, such as Erastus Rudd and the Rev.
Abner Jackson) read Spalding's "Book of Lehi," in which the
wandering Israelites did indeed come to America to found
the city of Zarahemla. They then saw in the Book of Mormon
a very similar story -- but one "pared down" to a narrative
centered on the Lehites -- one "pared down" to eliminate
most of the "Mulekite" migration story.

It is only a theory -- and you can reject it. That is your right.

Now, if you want me to PROVE the theory, as unassailable
fact, we will have to start by examining either the lost
"Manuscript Found," or the lost "Book of Lehi."

That is, unless you can come up with your own proof, to
convince me that my theory should not be researched.

UD

Dale, that again dodges the question of what a nineteenth century person would expect from a story about the lost tribes. The Book of Lehi is irrelevant because the witnesses never read it. None of the witnesses note any "paring down". They seem anxious to prove, by their statements, that the Book of Mormon is almost exactly the same as the Spalding story except for the religious material. And four of the witnesses said unequivocally that Spalding's tale was about the lost tribes coming to the Americas and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians.
What does the Book of Mormon say about the lost tribes?

But now I ago unto the Father, and also to show myself unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not lost unto the Father, for he knoweth whither he hath taken them.

(3 Nephi 17:4)

Pretty definite disassociation there.

Glenn

[_MCB]

???????????????? Glenn, are you familiar with the story of the lost 116 pages?