Nevo:
Not necessarily.
Why not? I think you might already be inserting a bias against Spalding/Rigdon into the scenario I just laid out for the case Kish is making. I'm asking you
IF these factors could legitimately be added to the parallels Kish has already posted, then would that not add to their weight?
I don't think the stories are as similar as you are making them out to be. Spalding's narrator doesn't walk up a hill, for one thing. He treads on a flat stone while walking near the remains of an ancient fort along the west bank of the Conneaut River.
Which, if I remember correctly from my excursion to the area a few years ago, sits on a hill. I'll grant, however, that Spalding doesn't specifically mention a hill.
When he pries up the stone he discovers an "artificial cave" about 8 feet deep. He descends into the "cave" and notices a "door" in the wall.
It is interesting, in light of this, that some of the earliest descriptions of the Hill Cumorah have it being hollow inside and, if my memory serves correctly, even having been explored by early Mormons like Brigham Young. But yes, again, there are certainly differences between Spalding's story and Smith's. If there were no differences, the connection would be obvious.
Behind the door is a clay box housing 28 pages of parchment written in Latin. In Joseph Smith's story, he's directed by an angel to a hill where he locates gold plates, Urim and Thummin, and a breastplate in a stone box beneath a "stone of considerable size." In both stories an ancient manuscript is discovered in a cavity beneath a stone, but that's about where the similarity ends.
Not necessarily. Both works are eventually translated into English by their discoverers. Both discoverers use a lever that happened to be available in order to dislodge the unusual stone. Both works tell the tale of the ancient inhabitants of the North American continent complete with warring tribes who use similarly implausible battle tactics. Both authors encourage their readers to ponder the truthfulness of the claims being made by the book.
Fictional works framed as discovered manuscripts were not uncommon in this era.
...snip...
Given the common idea of a manuscript hidden up by ancient Americans, it's not surprising that both Spalding and Smith claimed to have discovered manuscripts in man-made holes in the ground disguised by a large stone (and not, say, in a library or an old church). Nothing requires us to conclude that Joseph Smith must have relied on Spalding for his discovery narrative. He could easily have come up with the story independently.
This is all well and good, however, you are glossing over the relevant factor. I agree that "it's not surprising that both Spalding and Smith claimed to have discovered manuscripts in man-made holes in the ground disguised by a large stone (and not, say, in a library or an old church)." I also agree that "He could easily have come up with the story independently." That notion begins to weaken, however, when we consider the timeline coupled with the question of whether or not Joseph needed to make anything up in the first place.
In other words, if Joseph was telling the truth, then his story is remarkably similar to Solomon Spalding's - noting, of course, the differences you point out. In that case, the similarities in the stories are merely coincidental. But you've stated the assertion from the skeptic's point of view: "Nothing requires us to conclude that Joseph Smith must have relied on Spalding for his discovery narrative. He could easily have come up with the story independently."
If we look at this from the perspective of Joseph
needing to "come up with [a] story independently" then we have to ask, why did the story he came up with resemble Spalding's? Coincidence? Maybe, but how coincidental is it when Smith's story comes out
years after there had already been claims made by seemingly credible people of a definite connection between the writings of the two men? In other words, when the claims of a connection between Spalding's writings and Smith's writings were first made, no one was suggesting that the discovery narrative parallels were the basis for that claim because those parallels were not yet in existence - at least not in written form.
"...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.