Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

[_mikwut]

Roger,

Take your time in posting, no rush. I am limited time wise myself, have certain days and not others. I said,

I have been listening to your oft repeated coincidence of the Spalding Roman Story not being public in 1838. I am missing the significance. Can you elaborate on the significance of that?

You responded,

I almost wonder if you are serious or if you're being sarcastic? You yourself call it "oft repeated" and then you want me to eleborate more? Did you read my last post? I really don't know how to say it any better and I really hesitate to simply to restate something I've already stated more than once.

I am not being coy. Really. It is your theory and your burden to defend it with historical evidence. Whether it has been Art Vanick or Dale or any other defender of the theory that I have engaged in; it is when I demand the theory from the S/R theorist that the retreat to just-so stories, conjecture, assumption and no real evidence pervades. Or requests that it demands more historical investigation. I re-read Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon a month ago and I was disgusted at how many times I read, "Certainly....., without question, now that it is proven to any reasonble person, etc.." enough times to make my stomach turn.

I am saying that the evidence is the similarities that nearly everyone can see between a Spalding text and a Smith text and based on that one should then ask why are there similarities in a text written by Smith in 1838 and Spalding in 1811?

Generally LDS apologists chalk it up to coincidence. I would say that might be a reasonable answer IF the two texts would have been written by Joseph Smith and some obscure writer somewhere, but that is not the case.

But since historically we know that the two texts are not dependent on each other (Roman and Book of Mormon) your left with simple just-so stories of imagining exactly what the other manuscript must be like. Every similarity (stone and lever) is transported to the assumed Manuscript Found and every dis-similarity is transported as well (and it came to pass).

You continued...

Of course it is! Did you not see my earlier post in which I posed the question to S-R critics whether they wanted to argue that Smith colluded with Hurlbut and Howe? I certainly don't think so, but that is one possibility. If I recall correctly there is even speculation that Hurlbut may have sold the ms to Smith!

That is not my position however. You must not have fully read my last post otherwise you would know that I suggest something close to Dale's option # 6 occured.

Dales option #6 is, "6. The parallels exist because the Book of Mormon borrows narrative/themes/vocabulary from some "lost" Spalding tale which resembled his Roman story, but was not exactly the same."

So what historical evidence do you have and rely on that this isn't a just-so story that warrants your belief greater than what Ben is saying? Your warrant is so high you don't even have to get into methodology as Ben requests of you? Your evidence must be unassailable for such warrant.

my regards, mikwut

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Your evidence must be unassailable
...

1. If we are talking about somebody making use of the Spalding-Rigdon authorship explanation
in order to try and persuade a wavering Mormon to deny his/her testimony, then I may agree.

2. If we are talking about somebody making use of the Spalding-Rigdon authorship explanation
in order to plan out a course of historical research/study, then I cannot agree with your posting.

Unfortunately, some zealots attempt to implement strategy #1, and then cite me as their "proof."
I've never been very comfortable with that sort of thing. (I'm more of a strategy #2 sort of guy)

Uncle Dale

[_mikwut]

Dale,

I appreciate your sentiment. I am not convinced your actual belief is accurately portrayed by solely a desire for more historical investigation- although I am sure your sincere in that. Your investment is too great. Your tact and method are certainly more appeasing and amendable to dialogue than the Vanick et al. crowd who don't even see the massive holes in properly constructing such a theory historically but should and definitely more amendable than the marg mentality that is convinced the theory is all but proven and don't even understand the historical limitations.

What I respect about your position is I think it rests primarily on an inward conviction you have, a deep "hunch" if you will, and that isn't meant to be pejoritive but rather complimentary; our greatest achievements in knowledge have come from that self same center. But, I have little doubt you don't have respect for the limitations of the theory historically at present.

my regards, mikwut

[_Roger]

Ben wrote:

But Spalding IS an obscure writer somewhere.

No he isn't. That has been my point from the beginning and I sincerely don't know if you, Dan, William, etc. honestly don't see that or deliberately don't want to deal with it. But in my view it is highly relevant. See Dale's post above on the meaning of "obscure."

I notice that you DID respond to Dale's parallels, however. I have not had enough time to look that over, but I will.

Thanks for your input.

[_Brackite]

The words you list are textually related. Since the Spalding Roman story is not the one being claimed to have been used for the Book of Mormon, but rather another one, it is not surprising that one could find textual words relevant to the Roman story not be found in the Book of Mormon, if the manuscript used for the Book of Mormon was different than the Spalding Roman Story.

You do appreciate the that Spalding theory is not that the Spalding Roman story was used I hope, because in that link you give above it argues as if The Spalding Roman story is the one that Spalding theorists claim was used, and that's being disingenuous, because that is simply not the case. Rather another manuscript, described by witnesses as completed and taken to the printers which went back further in historical time than the Spalding Roman story was described by Spalding witnesses as being used..I believe referred to as Manuscript Found, or MF. And in that MF story, when the characters arrive in America perhaps South America, unlike the Roman story there were no North American Indians described. So it is understandable why many of the textual words you or someone else picked out would not have been in the other completed Spalding MF manuscript...such as tomahawk, feather..even turkey. And since the stories were different, the Roman one about an army arriving in N.A. ...the MF about a family arriving...again descriptive words on what they used or had in their possession would likely be different. In addition Spalding was nick-named by friends as "old come to pass". "So he apparently wrote the MF story in biblical sounding language to give it an ancient sound.

I believe the Jocker's study eliminates that problem that using textual words would created by deliberately not using them.

Hello Marg,

I believe that the Roman Story is the one and only Spaulding Manuscript. I do Not believe that there is a lengthy Spaulding Manuscript that is very similar to the Book of Mormon, which ended up lost. The Brackite does Not believe in a missing Spaulding Manuscript, Just very much like how the Brackite does Not believe in a missing Papyrus for the Book of Abraham. The Spaulding Theorists claim that there is a missing Spaulding Manuscript from Spaulding, Just very, very much like how most of the LDS Apologists of the Book of Abraham claim that there is a Missing Papryus for the Book of Abraham. LDS Apologist of the Book of Abraham, William Schryver is a big believer, and a Proponet of the Missing Papyrus theory for the Book of Abraham. However, The evidence is very, very indeed overwhelming that the Book of Abraham was translated from the Book of Breathings text ((also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing permit" for the priest Hor text.


#17. The Roman Story mentions geese. (1)
... The Book of Mormon does Not mention geese. (2)


1. The corrected e-text.

2. The Book of Mormon -- Simple Searches:

[_Uncle Dale]

...parallels, however. I have not had enough time to look that over
...

The thematic/phraseology parallels in the two "ancient record" discovery stories
are not meant to serve as proof that Spalding's writings were copied into the
Book of Mormon. So Ben's criticisms are more or less valid, for anybody seeking
to impinge upon Mormonism by referring to these sorts of textual resemblances.

So -- are they of any use at all?

Yes, I think so. The discovery story resemblances catch our attention and cause us
to ask: "Is this all there is?" or "Is this the sum total of Spalding/Book of Mormon parallels?"

Actually, the discovery story parallels do not come from a comparison of the Book of Mormon
and Spalding's known writings, so at best they serve as a kind of pathmarker.

What else lies on the path beyond the discovery story resemblances?

Well, for one thing, the overall distribution of textual overlap/affinities that we
might find by actually comparing Spalding to the Book of Mormon. By implementing various
textual comparison methods, we soon discover that the bulk of the Book of Mormon's
parallels with Spalding are found clustered in the latter part of Alma.

So -- is THAT odd distribution of thematic/phraseology parallels, "all there is?"

Are they of any use to us at all?

Yes, I think so. The pattern of textual resemblances catches our attention and
causes us to examine them more carefully -- employing quantitative methods
of inspection, etc.

For those of us who are interested in such things, one textual discovery leads
to another -- predictions are confirmed through extended inspection, etc.

I see the process resembling the results of an archaeological dig. At first we
only have scattered artifacts, lying on the surface, to catch our attention.
Some amongst us may argue that the relics are unconnected -- meaningless.
Others amongst us may guess that an entire ancient buried city lies beneath
our feet. Rather than stopping to argue, we begin to dig -- looking for hidden
connections. If we are correct in our estimation of the scene, the ruins of
the buried city will eventually be uncovered.

If our critics are correct, we will not uncover any such remains below the surface
and the initial scattered artifacts we encountered will remain just that -- unrelated
oddities that indicate no greater reality than their coincidental occurrence on the ground.

We still have a lot of digging to do -- but perhaps we'll get some help along the line.

UD

[_Roger]

Roger,

Take your time in posting, no rush. I am limited time wise myself, have certain days and not others.

I'm in exactly the same situation. But I try to squeeze a post or two in when I can.

I am not being coy. Really. It is your theory and your burden to defend it with historical evidence.

Actually it's not my theory. It began around 1832, so it predates everyone here. As for what I know of Book of Mormon production at this point in time, however, it best explains the totality of the evidence as I understand it. So, I'm looking at testimony and evidence, and then drawing a conclusion of which direction that evidence points (in my opinion of course)--not from the standpoint of picking some theory and then defending it with evidence. In fact I used to be a Smith-alone advocate until I started really looking at the evidence for a S-R connection to the Book of Mormon

Whether it has been Art Vanick or Dale or any other defender of the theory that I have engaged in; it is when I demand the theory from the S/R theorist that the retreat to just-so stories, conjecture, assumption and no real evidence pervades. Or requests that it demands more historical investigation.

Well frankly there is a LOT of material one should consider when it comes to this topic and, personally, I think demanding even a summary of it on an internet discussion board is not really the best way to approach it. You can't really make a decision--or at least not a very good one--based on the limited amount of material one person can respond to in the way of your "demands" on a discussion board. That's one reason I think Dale is always encouraging more investigation. I agree with him that the evidence warrants it.

I re-read Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon a month ago and I was disgusted at how many times I read, "Certainly....., without question, now that it is proven to any reasonble person, etc.." enough times to make my stomach turn.

Well honestly I think that's just a tad unfair. Sounds like you just don't like the writing style. I'm sure I could say the same about any number of LDS apologists. I think the arguments should stand or fall based on evidence and testimony, regardless how it is packaged.

But since historically we know that the two texts are not dependent on each other (Roman and Book of Mormon) your left with simple just-so stories of imagining exactly what the other manuscript must be like. Every similarity (stone and lever) is transported to the assumed Manuscript Found and every dis-similarity is transported as well (and it came to pass).

If your complaint here is: "show me the missing Spalding manuscript" then you have a valid complaint.

If we had the Manuscript Found we'd probably all be rich.

But please think this through.... or at least allow me to... if I'm Sidney Rigdon and/or Joseph Smith and I used a Spalding ms to help create the Book of Mormon, do you really think I'm going to keep the evidence around for posterity? Of course not. So the most likely scenario--if MF ever really existed--is that it was destroyed. I can't help that. Art can't help that, Dale can't, nobody can. If you, like Brodie, want to reject the theory because Manscript Found is nowhere to be found that is certainly your prerogative. I don't, though, because 1. I'm willing to accept that MF was very likely destroyed and 2. other evidence (meaning the whole body of evidence) warrants that conclusion

Of course it is! Did you not see my earlier post in which I posed the question to S-R critics whether they wanted to argue that Smith colluded with Hurlbut and Howe? I certainly don't think so, but that is one possibility. If I recall correctly there is even speculation that Hurlbut may have sold the ms to Smith!

That is not my position however. You must not have fully read my last post otherwise you would know that I suggest something close to Dale's option # 6 occured.

Dales option #6 is, "6. The parallels exist because the Book of Mormon borrows narrative/themes/vocabulary from some "lost" Spalding tale which resembled his Roman story, but was not exactly the same."

So what historical evidence do you have and rely on that this isn't a just-so story that warrants your belief greater than what Ben is saying? Your warrant is so high you don't even have to get into methodology as Ben requests of you? Your evidence must be unassailable for such warrant.

my regards, mikwut

In the first place Ben is apparently a scholar or at least has a lot more time to spend at this than I do. I simply don't have the time or know-how to go about evaulating texts according to some pre-ordained set of rules. I will leave that to the scholars.

But I'm arrogant enough to still think I can think and--yes--to recognize parallels "when I see them." For Ben's benefit (so he does not jump all over me) does that mean I know them to be parallels? No. However, ironically, I'll bet he wants me to recognize the story he posted as paralleling the other two accounts... and to be honest it appears that there are indeed some similarities. Certainly warrants some additional investigation! --I think I caught Walter Scott's name as the author, however, so that may be suspect... but I will have to take a closer look when I have more time.

As to what you stated above.... I'm not exactly sure what you mean when you say a "just-so story" but there is evidence. It consists mainly of testimony but also some tangible elements. I do see this particular set of converging "coincidences" that we are discussing here as "evidence." So far no one can explain why Spalding's Roman story parallels an 1838 Smith account instead of Josiah Beneschnevich's 1786 account of....... now maybe it's just a really weird coincidence, but I think there is a better explanation.

As to additional evidence... you are probably aware of the 1816 "letter-waiting" notice in a Pittsburgh newspaper? Of course, this piece of tangible evidence is downplayed by LDS apologists, but it is--IMO--also very significant in that it shows that Rigdon was not being honest when he claimed he was never in Pittsburgh prior to 1822. I know that people who want to believe Sidney on that point will argue that a letter-waiting notice does not prove he was ever there, etc. etc. but I simply think they come up with that because they don't want to believe Rigdon lied about this or because they understand the implications in terms of the S-R theory if they accept it.

The fact is--and I am aware that LDS apologists disagree with this--the waiting notice supports Rebecca Eichbaum's testimony and her testimony is a key piece of this whole theory.

Additional tangible evidence comes in the form of the Roman story parallels to the Book of Mormon. While LDS have touted the Roman story and the Book of Mormon as having nothing in common, I just don't buy it.

Additional non-tangilble evidence comes in the form of witnesses. You may want to reject their testimony, but I don't see the justification for throwing it out. I think Brodie was just wrong and I think one can come to that conclusion logically. It doesn't make sense that Hurlbut would coach his witnesses to the extent argued by Brodie. No one ever complained that Hurlbut had put words in their mouths. Not only that but there is additional testimony besides those printed in Howe's book that supports their testimony.

Not only that but S-R critics want to claim that the Roman story is the only Spalding manuscript. If that is the case then Spalding submitted a disjointed, incomplete and contradictory ms to the Pattersons for publication! And even worse, Mr Patterson apparently asked for a second look! There is no way the Roman story would have been seriously considered for publication, therefore I conclude the Roman story was NOT the one submitted to the Pattersons. And that conclusion is based on the tangible evidence we have, not on "just-so" stories. If that is true--and I'm pretty sure it is--then there had to have been another ms, which, amazingly, is exactly what the witnesses claim.

That's just skimming the surface. There's a lot more.

What I am interested in is solid, logical arguments and/or evidence that refutes the S-R theory. I want to know what the best evidence against it is. I'm certainly open to going back to Smith-alone. But so far nothing I've seen justifies it.

[_Roger]

UD:

Now you're telling horse stories!

Let's say that my grandfather owned a unique horse -- one with an orange and gray coat --
but that horse was forgotten long ago.

How do we know your grandfather's horse ever existed? The stories of the people who claim it did are way too similar.

[_marg]

Absent some proof of the fact, how might I convince you (or anybody else)
that I did not "search out" examples of unusual horses, in order to falsely
suspect my neighbor's criminal possession of his own orange and gray animal?

UD

It would be a matter of arguing that you were not motivated to damage your neighbour's reputation as you had nothing to gain by doing so...no financial reward, no personal benefit. Perhaps you could present evidence that you had a good relationship prior to your accusation, if that was the case.

Then you could point out, that if you knowingly falsely accused him of stealing your grandfather's horse you would also have to have appreciated at the time, that since you knew your accusation was false, he likely could have proved that by providing evidence he owned the horse...and of course that would be no benefit to you, as it would negatively impact your reputation.

So your argument would be, 'why would you premeditatively wish to damage his reputation based upon weak evidence, which is all you had, when he in all liklihood if he did own the horse, could have provided verfiable evidence to support that.' You had nothing to gain by doing so.

[_marg]

and definitely more amendable than the marg mentality that is convinced the theory is all but proven and don't even understand the historical limitations.

I wouldn't say it's been proven, but given the data available it is the best fit rational theory. Unlike your irrational mentality in which you believe in the supernatural of angels, seer stones, metal plates taken by an angel and returned to heaven, I tend to stick with the rational. So you don't have much of a leg to stand on if you wish to criticize my mentality.

What's your best fit theory for the data?