Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Manuscript Found is the Spaulding's Roman story.
...

You appear to say that with the same assurance that you might state that 2+2=4.

Do you expect us to believe that the manuscript submitted to Robert Patterson, Sr.,
which he described as being written in the biblical style and a possible candidate
for publication consideration, is this unfinished (and unfinshable) mess of a Roman story?

Do you seriously expect us to believe that this is the same document that Spalding's
widow re-submitted to Mr. Patterson, after her husband's death -- and which he kept
on hand for review for several days before refusing it a second time, and returning
the manuscript to the hapless widow?

Do you really expect us to believe that this is the story, written in Biblical style,
that William Leffingwell proofread and corrected when he and Spalding lived at
Conneaut, Ohio before the War of 1812.

How can you expect us to believe that this is the story recalled by Spalding's
foster daughter, when (after reading the Roman story) she rejected it as
being the oft-mentioned "Manuscript Found?"

How can you throw aside Aron Wright's 1833 disclosure that the Roman story
was not the "Manuscript Found" that he and others knew -- and how can you
ignore Eber D. Howe's 1834 published rejection of the Roman story as the
"Manuscript Found" described elsewhere in his book?

Can you point to a single witness, who ever said: "Yes, this Roman story is
precisely the same 'Manuscript Found' old Spalding was working on"? ----
Not even Spalding's brother goes that far (and he had seen a story similar
to the Roman tale).

You might want to go back and read Abner Jackson's description of the
"Manuscript Found," and explain why he and his son did not accept the
Roman story as the Lost Tribes account Abner had once been exposed to.

The Oberlin Roman story pages bear witness to being a re-write themselves.
They contain the date 1814 -- they contain a fictionalized account of an
anticipated British-Canadian attack on Conneaut that was reported only
after Spalding had left that place in 1812 for his new home at Pittsburgh.

B. H. Roberts would not defend his own prior rhetoric, were he here today
and able to sift through all the evidence we have available for inspection.

UD

[_marg]

Dale, I know you responded much better than I possibly could to Brackite by pointing out the many witnesses who clearly remembered a manuscript which was not M.S...Conneaut Creek/Roman story. I probably should just leave your reply to stand, but I did write something from a different perspective.

We do have Manuscript Found. Manuscript Found is the Spaulding's Roman story.
Here is The Following, From Brigham H. Roberts:

>>>...snip
"Why was it that the neighbors of Spaulding about Conneaut did not say before this manuscript was brought to light by Howe, Hurlburt, et al, that Spaulding had written several manuscripts on the subject of the ancient inhabitants of America; one that told of a Roman colony that came to America and settled in the Ohio valley, the story of their adventures being "written in modern style;" but that this story he abandoned and wrote another,"

Well Brackite, more than one witness did say Spalding wrote more than just the one novel than the one they were referencing in their statements to Hurlbut in 1833. Keep in mind at the time they gave their statements the only Spalding work of importance was the one which would show plagiarism for the Book of Mormon, so why would they even think of going into detail about any other work of Spalding's they might remember, when they had no knowledge that any manuscripts of Spalding's would ever surface. Spalding only had one novel meant for publication and sale, the others were meant for personal amusement. So the one meant for publication was the only one remembered as being used to plagiarize from. Also why would Hurlbut focus on getting witnesses to give details of all all or any of Spalding's historical works ...when the main one under focus for consideration was not even available, let alone any of the other works? And no one in Conneaut had any idea they ever would be made available.

So while in 1833 Conneaut witnesses did not go into any details about Spalding's work other than the one under focus for being plagiarized from..they did mention Spalding had written other works.

It does appear though that his brother Josiah who visited Solomon about 1811 and stayed with him for a time..in a letter he wrote in 1855 at the age of 90 recalls a story Spalding was working. His recollection is a much better match for Manuscript Story -Conneaut Creek than Manuscript Found.

However according to Abner Jackson (who while young had listened to Spalding read to him and his dad)... Spalding had commenced writing the Manuscript Found intended for publication...in 1812. In his description of what he heard read it is consistent with content of Book of Mormon not with Spalding's Roman story. So likely Josiah was not living with Solomon at the time of commencement of M.F. but rather lived with him while he was writing for amusement purposes MS- Conneaut Creek.


Brackite, one of the witnesses Aaron Wright who I consider very credible... he was well respected by the town, a judge...stated in his testimony to Hurlbut Aug 1833.."Spalding had many other manuscripts which I expect to see when Smith translates his plates". In his testimony to Hurlbut it is clear by the details he gives, he is not referencing The Roman Story by Spalding.

When the Roman Story resurfaced in 1880 ...on the back written in Hurlbut's handwriting was

] The Writings of Solomon Spalding
Proved by Aron Wright Oliver
Smith John n. Miller and others
The testimonies of the above
Gentlemen are now in my
Possession D P Hurlbut

So that information was not in Eber Howe's book published 1834. What E. Howe wrote in his book was:

The trunk referred to by the widow, was subsequently examined, and found to contain only a single M.S. book, in Spalding's hand-writing, containing about one quire of paper. This is a romance, purporting to have been translated from the Latin, found on 24 rolls of parchment in a cave, on the banks of the Conneaut Creek, but written in modern style, and giving a fabulous account of a ship's being driven upon the American coast, while proceeding from Rome to Britain, a short time previous to the Christian era, this country then being inhabited by the Indians. This old M. S. has been shown to several of the foregoing witnesses, who recognize it as Spalding's, he having told them that he had altered his first plan of writing, by going farther back with dates, and writing in the old scripture style, in order that I might appear more ancient. They say that it bears no resemblance to the "Manuscript Found."

Four months after Aaron Wright gaves his statement to Hurlbut Aug, 1833, the one E. Howe publishes in his book, he gives another to Hurlbut upon being presented with the MS-Conneaut Creek Hurlbut had recently obtained druing his trip to Spalding's widow.

Evidence for this is further strengthened by relatively recently surfaced evidence. In 1980..a draft of a letter in Hurlbut's handwriting apparently a statement taken from A. Wright is found..it is consistent with the Aug statement. It had been given to the N.Y. Public Library in 1914, by Mrs Hiram Lake. Aaron Wright had this to say in this draft letter...likely intended to be given over to the Citizen's committee by Hurlbut who had financed him to investigate and obtained evidence for plagiarism for the Book of Mormon.

"S Spalding
Esq sd Hurlbut is now at my store I have
examined the writings which he has obtained
from sd Spaldings widowe I recognise them to
be the writings hand writing of sd Spalding but not
the manuscript I had refferance to in my statement"

The entire draft letter is on Dales’ website:http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/Ashtab3.htm
Note it is best to read from Dale's site...crossed out words do not copy.

Dear Sir

Whereas I have been informed
that you have been appointed with others
to investigate the subject of Mormonism and a
resolution has been past to ascertain the real
orrigin of the sd Book this is therefore to
inform you that I have made a statement
to D P Hurlbut relative to writings of S Spalding
Esq sd Hurlbut is now at my store I have
examined the writings which he has obtained
from sd Spaldings widowe I recognise them to
be the writings hand writing of sd Spalding but not
the manuscript I had refferance to in my statement
before alluded to as he informed me he wrote in the
first place he wrote for his own amusement and
then altered his plan and commenced writing a
history of the first Settlement of America the
particulars you will find in my testimony Dated
Sept 1833 August 1833 -- for years before he
left this place I was quite intimate with sd S
Spalding we had many private interviews the history
he was writing was the topic of his conversation relating
his progress and Contemplating the avails of the same
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 the Book of Mormon does not contain all
the writings sd Spladings I expect to see them if
Smith is permitted to go on and as he says get
his other plates the first time that Mr Hyde
a Mormon Preacher from Kirtland preached in
the centre School house in this place the Hon
Nehmiah King attended as soon as Hyde had
got through King left the house and said that
Hide had preached from the writings of S Spalding

In conclusion I will observe that the names and
most of the historical part of the Book of Mormon
is as familiar to me as Most modern history
if if is not Spaldings writings copied it is the same
as he wrote and if Smith was inspired I think
it was by the same Spirit that Spalding possessed
which he confessed to be the love of money __

[/quote]


So witness were aware Spalding had written other works. Witnesses such as Aaron Wright, a very credible witness were very familiar with Spalding's Manuscript Found and were certain that the MS- Conneaut Creek shown them, was not the one they had been referring to in their statement to Hurlbut.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
So witness were aware Spalding had written other works.
...

It may be germane to mention here that Lewis L. Rice, the discoverer of the Roman story in 1884,
was the publisher of the second (1840) edition of Howe's book, and a longstanding Ohio resident,
who was in a good situation to consult with old friends and associates, over the importance of
the Spalding Roman story.

BEFORE pursuing those sorts of consultations, Mr. Rice offered the opinion that Spalding had only
ever written ONE American pseudohistorical novel, and that he (Rice) had discovered it in 1884.
AFTER consulting with other old-time Ohio residents, Rice updated his conclusions regarding the
Roman story, saying that he did NOT believe it to be the "Manuscript Found."

Since Mr. Rice is sometimes cited by the Mormons as having offered an expert opinion on this
matter, I think it is very telling, that they suppress his updated conclusions, and only mention
his initial reaction.

Same goes for James H. Fairchild, whom the Mormons love to cite as a "Gentile expert." They
reproduce his initial reactions and suppress his later, updated conclusion, that the Roman
story was not necessarily the "Manuscript Found."

B.H. Roberts has been quoted here, on this matter. Roberts had Fairchild's updated statement
in front of him, and even reproduced that material in his quotations of Schroeder -- but Roberts
himself fails to address this evolution in Fairchild's conclusions.

For crying out loud! even the arch-enemy of the Spalding claims, Fawn M. Brodie, wrote a letter
to Spalding advocate, Phyllis Farkas, expressing the possibility that the Roman story was NOT
the "Manuscript Found." Brodie thus died, uncertain of the merit of her own book's arguments.

However, if any LDS wishes to step forward and bear witness to having received a God-given
testimony, to the fact that Mr. Spalding only ever wrote a single piece of fiction in his lifetime,
I may have to reassess my own conclusions here.

UD

[_Roger]

Brackite wrote:

We do have Manuscript Found. Manuscript Found is the Spaulding's Roman story. Here is The Following, From Brigham H. Roberts:

Dale and marg then proceeded to decimate that argument. If you believe the Roman story IS Manuscript Found then I have some swamp land I might be able to peddle on you as well.

Dale wrote:

B. H. Roberts would not defend his own prior rhetoric, were he here today and able to sift through all the evidence we have available for inspection.

I agree. When S-R critics talk about the S-R theory as being a tired, worn out notion that was "debunked" years ago, it appears the reason is because they mistakenly think their own outdated rebuttals still do the job.

If Roberts was right and the Roman story was indeed Manuscript Found it would certainly be a bleak scenario for S-R advocates because the Roman story does not live up to the expectations laid out by the Conneaut witnesses. And if Hurlbut and Howe were simply out to get Smith--truth be darned, as S-R critics maintain--then why not "doctor" the witness statements to better match the Roman story? But that is not what happened.

Given the evidence and reasonable conclusion thereof that the Roman story is NOT MF, things fall into place very nicely. The easiest way for S-R detractors to counter the implications of such a nice fit, is for them to continue to try to get the world to accept the idea that Spalding only wrote one ms on the topic of old-world migrations to the new and that Hurlbut was lucky enough to discover it.

Whether that idea fits with the data is--to them--irrelevant.

[_wenglund]

Am I correct in concluding that everyone here is at least in agreement that the Book of Mormon was not plagarized from the extant Spalding manuscript (call it what you will: "Roman Story" or "Oberline Manuscript" or "Manuscript Found")?

If so, then I am not sure what value there is in identifying similarities between the extant manuscript and the Book of Mormon, or the discovery narrative for that matte, except perhaps to underscore the point that the two works may contain similarites even when not plagerized (a point that tends to work against Spalding theories). Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Jersey Girl]

Am I correct in concluding that everyone here is at least in agreement that the Book of Mormon was not plagarized from the extant Spalding manuscript (call it what you will: "Roman Story" or "Oberline Manuscript" or "Manuscript Found")?

If so, then I am not sure what value there is in identifying similarities between the extant manuscript and the Book of Mormon, or the discovery narrative for that matte, except perhaps to underscore the point that the two works may contain similarites even when not plagerized (a point that tends to work against Spalding theories). Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For Pete's sake, this is what I detest on a board. There are umpteen posts on this thread and other related threads explaining why the Roman Story is NOT Manuscript Found and someone like you is completely oblivious to it.

Give me a break.

[_Nevo]

For Pete's sake, this is what I detest on a board. There are umpteen posts on this thread and other related threads explaining why the Roman Story is NOT Manuscript Found and someone like you is completely oblivious to it.

Give me a break.

Uncle Dale said (here) that Wade is "probably the best anti-Spalding researcher Mormonism has yet produced." So I don't think he's completely oblivious.

[_Brackite]

Am I correct in concluding that everyone here is at least in agreement that the Book of Mormon was not plagarized from the extant Spalding manuscript (call it what you will: "Roman Story" or "Oberline Manuscript" or "Manuscript Found")?

If so, then I am not sure what value there is in identifying similarities between the extant manuscript and the Book of Mormon, or the discovery narrative for that matte, except perhaps to underscore the point that the two works may contain similarites even when not plagerized (a point that tends to work against Spalding theories). Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Welcome Back, Wade!

[_Jersey Girl]

For Pete's sake, this is what I detest on a board. There are umpteen posts on this thread and other related threads explaining why the Roman Story is NOT Manuscript Found and someone like you is completely oblivious to it.

Give me a break.

Uncle Dale said (here) that Wade is "probably the best anti-Spalding researcher Mormonism has yet produced." So I don't think he's completely oblivious.

What did I say he was oblivious to, Nevo? Nearly every post above his post has to do with distinquishing MF from MS. That's what I commented on, not his anti-Spalding research.

[_Nevo]

What did I say he was oblivious to, Nevo? Nearly every post above his post has to do with distinquishing MF from MS. That's what I commented on, not his anti-Spalding research.

I don't know how you determined that Wade is "oblivious" to the theory that there were two Spalding manuscripts (although only one is extant). I think he is well aware of it.