Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

[_Roger]

Ben:

Without the S/R hypothesis, and without the data supporting that hypothesis, the parallels may be coincidences, but as evidence accumulates those parallels statistically become less likely to be mere coincidences.

But this is only the case if you can prove the S/R hypothesis without circularly referencing this borrowing. Otherwise you simply produce a structure made of cards ...

As marg has correctly pointed out, the S/R claims stand on their own. We haven't even touched on the larger evidence and testimony supporting S/R. S/R doesn't *need* these parallels to stand or fall. They are simply a *bonus.*

Right - and all that matters is how it appears to you, right? There isn't really enough exact words to make your point stick though.

Speaking for me... when I'm discussing things on the internet, yes, how things appear to me is the most important thing to me. Certainly I respect other people's opinions and am willing to listen to any point of view, but in the end I am the one who decides whether to accept or reject what I hear. I really don't see any problem in that and I'm guessing if you were going to be totally honest it's probably the same for you.

I love the mythical manuscript.

And I simply adore the mythical plates.

Roger, of course, just suggested that Joseph was merely lazy.

Incorrect. Roger suggested that one possible motive could be that Smith was lazy. You did not rule out the possibility.

Why do you think he needed to use Spalding to describe his own discovery?

A fair question from a believer's point of view, but when one asks for speculation one should not condemn a speculative answer.

Personally I do not think Smith actually discovered anything. Therefore there was a need to come up with something and present it as though it actually happened.

And, of course those witnesses had to backpedal some. After all, it was clear to everyone that the Spalding manuscript didn't use names like Nephi, or Lehi, or Moroni, or even Zarahemla. Perhaps, having been caught in a lie and were simply covering their backsides ...

I don't see evidence of backpeddling. Instead I see you speculating.

But let's indulge your speculation for a moment... if Hurlbut coached his witnesses and was not above implanting false memories in their brains, why didn't he plant a few things from the Roman story into their tesitmonies? Wouldn't that be the perfect way to "get" Smith?

But this is exactly what you are doing. You are suggesting that because it appears to you to be strikingly similar, it must be so. But in fact, its not that strikingly similar -

I love this... what you're stating here is:

Those who disagree with Ben are stating that the parallels are "strikingly similar" because it appears to them to be "strikingly similar" however they are incorrect because "in fact, it's not that strikingly similar" because Ben says so.

The horse is long dead. We think the parallels are strikingly similar, you and Dan don't. Fine. I can live with that.

to the point that you have to include all of the other data just to try and make an argument.

Not at all. The case for S/R is complex and detailed. It has been made by others here and in many other places and venues quite effectively. It is impracticle to attempt or even suggest that all the data could be brought into this discussion under this format. All we are saying at this point is that if one were to consider the d.n. parallels without also considering the prior claims made by witnesses about a connection between their author and Smith prior to 1838, then one is knowingly slanting the playing field by excluding evidence. It seems to me that is exactly what you want... a playing field that ignores salient information.

But, this isn't sound reasoning. Its circular, subjective, and doesn't get you to the point of actually comparing the texts to see how similar they really are.

Of course it does! You think we haven't compared texts? Of course we have. Any 10 year old can compare the two texts and see similarities. You even admit to seeing them, for Pete's sake. But what you want goes well beyond simply comparing texts, which anyone can do. What you want is a certain type of methodology for comparison--which you decide on ahead of time--that views the parallels within a certain pre-determined set of "rules" that--you're convinced--will then shed doubt on their signficance. Furthermore, you want to force consideration of those parallels without also giving consideration to the broader context... in other words, if this were a jury you'd throw the lot of us out because we know too much about the case. You want a jury that doesn't consider prior claims that were made about the author of the parallels.

Nor does it even come close to attempting to answer the questions of why it was necessary that Joseph used the text in his own narrative (and that particular text - instead of the other mound discovery narratives that Vogel for example points out).

As marg has stated, it wasn't necessary. In fact, that point goes right along with what I have been stating again and again.... let's pretend Joseph really did discover plates just like he describes in his discovery narrative.... then what do we have? We have the mother of all coincidences.... not because his account parallels some obscure parchment discovery account written before 1816--although the level of similarity is still a bit unusual--but because his account parallels a parchment discovery account written by Solomon Spalding.

I note that you have not taken me up on my challenge to show that what occured was "typical" and therefore a duplicatable event. To do so you would need to come up with similar parallels from another author who had been associated with the Book of Mormon since 1832 and I dare suggest you can't do that. I further suggest that you can't do that because what actually occured is impossible to match, which says to me that it is indeed an extraordinary and non-typical event.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
I have a list of more than 3,000 different words which are found in Spalding's manuscript but not
found in the Book of Mormon....

What I need to see are about 3,000 words which are found in the Book of Mormon but NOT
found in Spalding's known writings -- words that we can guess he rarely or never used.

It would be very helpful if you could plot out the occurrences of THOSE 3,000 non-Spalding
words across a chapter map of the entire Book of Mormon text.

What I need to know is whether the non-Spalding Book of Mormon words occur in a relatively
even pattern, throughout the Book of Mormon -- or whether they cluster together in certain chapters.

Are you able to supply that sort of textual information?
If so, I would be more than happy to place it on the web for all to see.

UD

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Marg writes:

Ben I don't see anyone using the parallels of the discovery narratives between Spalding's Ms and Smith's later account as bolstering the reliability of the Spalding witnesses. If it does I'm failing to understand why.

But I do. I suspect that there is a lot here that is simply a matter of perspective.

Well I participated slightly and read Dan Vogel's perspective in a thread on this board in Celestial and I didn't find his arguments to discount Spalding witnesses ...a good one.

And neither Dan Vogel nor I find the arguments propping up the Spalding witnesses to be ... good ones. See? A matter of perspective. But that doesn't change the fact that there is quite a bit of literature devoted to exclusive theories of the origins of the Book of Mormon that you simply don't touch or look at - and that's why I question whether or not you are in a position to suggest that you are looking at all the issues.

But rather than bring up Vogel, Ben, feel free to argue his points, bringing up his name does no good, at least not for me.

Why? They are easily accessible. The challenge again is that you (not me) brought up the point about examining all the evidence. You want to be completely dismissive of Vogel, that's fine. But don't be overly critical if I am also dismissive of your hypotheticals that I find to be unsupportable.

- evidence points to 2 similar Spalding historical manuscripts

What evidence? What do we have of the 2nd Spalding manuscript? What quote do we have? What information is contained in that text that we know must come from that text and not from some other source? What you have isn't evidence of a second text. It may be evidence that some people thought there was a second text - but it comes after the realization that the found text didn't match up with descriptions. And without anything beyond a few vague comments - quite late, and in response to the obvious problem that the discovered manuscript didn't match their own expectations, a second manuscript is created.

- likely Spalding duplicated or wrote a very similar disc. narr. for both..because one was not meant for publication and was a reworked version of the other

This reminded me of a question I have been meaning to ask. Where did Spalding get his idea for his discovery narative?

- 1838..Smith gives a detailed discovery narrative of finding plates remarkably similar to Roman story..which was lost but resurfaced 1884..lever used, stone box.,hidden ancient historical find etc

It isn't remarkably similar. You keep saying this, but repeating it ad nauseum won't make it true. How do you define "remarkably similar"? What would make it less remarkably similar?

By the way, did you see what you just did? This seems to be one of those instances of circular reasoning involving these parallels.

We don't have conclusive evidence so we look at all the evidence and hypothesize to a best fit scenario.

Right, the problem is that the fact that there is no connection between Spalding's manuscript (either the known one or the mythical one) also describes the scenario equally well. That there are some parallels, which are not that particularly unique, and which could have come from other contemporary sources means that there are some coincidentally overlapping issues - but the coincidences are by no means surprising or even remarkable.

Ben your hypthesis that the discovery narrative Smith gave in 1838, is merely coincidentally strikingly similar to the Roman story, despite that since soon after the Book of Mormon publication in 1830 ...the Spalding plagiarism theory had been circulating...is what doesn't stick. Your coincidental hypothesis is weaker to explain the data than the one from the very beginning before evidence was even gathered..that a Spalding work had been plagiarized to write the Book of Mormon.

Again, you don't have to have all of this other stuff about an alleged theory.

Texts can be strikingly similar without the need for huge amounts of background data. They can be disimilar also. Apparently, the similarities are not striking enough to stand on their own without trying to force the issue by providing all sorts of other irrelevant information. We have the texts. We can compare them. When we do, we find that the similarities aren't that striking. They aren't that remarkable. It seems to me you want to talk about anything but the texts.

First, do you think Smith related an actual personal discovery or a fictional one?

I think its irrelevant. Real personal accounts can be based on other narratives (and often are). Where do you think that Spalding got the idea for his narrative from?

It wasn't a question of need. It was a matter of convenience. And the narrative which was from his perspective was fictional anyhow matched with the premise of the Book of Mormon which was plagiarized Spalding's M.F.

I am not sure I understand your point? What makes the Spalding text more convenient than Joseph using other circulating narratives about the mound builders (ala Vogel)?

Ben your arguement here fails. The witnesses said they had the Book of Mormon and had look at and/or read it before giving their statement. Hurlbut the one you think was coaching them was very familiar with the Book of Mormon storyline. So witnesses mentioning specific names in Book of Mormon proves nothing.

But it also doesn't prove plagiarism or that these individuals were actually familiar with another Spalding manuscript (or even the Book of Mormon).

John Miller did mention that Spalding told him he landed his people near the Straits of Darien which he called Zarahemla..that was not in any newspaper account. I believe later J. Smith conjectured something similar, so perhaps Smith got the idea from reading E. Howe's book.

Lyman and Orson apaprently preached on the Book of Mormon and suggest that the first of the battles at the end of the Book of Mormon (those described by Moroni) started with a battle at the straits of Darien, and ended at Cumorah. This was originally reported in the news in February 1832 in Franklin, Pennsylvania, but was reprinted in New York in March of 1832. Certainly early enough to be in circulation at the time that John Miller has his comments recorded 18 months later, although it is also true that Orson Pratt had spent some time proselyting in Miller's county of Erie Pennsylvania. Pratt would later write a book describing his geography model (circa 1840 If I recall correctly) placing Zarahemla just south of the straits of Darien. Of course, that would also be a pretty radical departure for Spalding, who would have had to have had his second manuscript occuring in mesoamerica and not in North America ... but at any rate, it would have been quite easy for Miller to have come up with these comments without having to allege a Spalding source for them. It would also explain the apparent issue in Miller's account for the landing of the Book of Mormon people at Zarahemla. The Mulekites may have landed near there, but Nephi and Lehi did not, the Nephites having made two significant migrations in the promised land before arriving at Zarahemla.

These details - a published account evidencing a tradition being aggressively taught by Mormon missionaries, and the subsequent publication of the book (that is, the trend continues for quite some time), indicate that its much more likely that these details came not from Spalding but from Orson Pratt. And these details - the details of Orson Pratt's geography - stack up fairly well with Miller's comments about geography - that: "When Spalding divested his history of its fabulous names, by a verbal explanation, he landed his people near the Straits of Darien, which I am very confident he called Zarahemla, they were marched about that country for a length of time, in which wars and great blood shed ensured, he brought them across North America in a north east direction." And this also squares with the newspaper account of Orson's preaching: "... After that the inhabitants divided and wars ensued, in which the pagans prevailed. - The first battle was fought nigh to the straits of Darien, and the last at a hill called Cumoro."

The simple answer to all of these is that there is a familiarity with published and fairly widely represented issues in the Book of Mormon, and not much with the less well known details - and that the witnesses show absolutely no real familiarity with Spalding's work, as I suggest. There is still nothing unique in these witnesses' statements which can be pointed directly to a Spalding source.

Ben M.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Dale, this is what I would need for such a project -

I would need clean text files of all of Spalding's works. I would be comfortable using it with punctuation and numbers stripped out, and preferrably hyphenations removed and hyphenated words concantenated (but unless these were the only instances of a hyphenated word, it probably wouldn't have any impact to include them - since this would be a rather rough preliminary in any case). After that, it would be relatively easy for me to produce such a comparison (the better part of a couple of afternoons maybe). I could probably provide the breakdown by current chapter divisions if you want - which should be narrow enough for your needs.

Better yet, since I don't need break outs by unit in Spalding's works, I would be completely happy with some kind of electronic vocabulary for Spalding - which I could simply plug in to my analysis tools I have developed. This wouldn't give us any kind of frequency analysis for Spalding, but then, I am not sure you are too worried about that in this question. I can create this vocabulary from clean text files, but if I could get the list, it would save a tremendous amount of work.

I am not sure such a study would reveal anything, but it might be interesting. Get me the clean text files or a vocabulary list and I will do the rest. (If they can't be cleaned easily, I do have some stuff to rip out the numbers and punctuation to the extent that I need it removed).

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

You can't "assume" witnesses are lying because you don't like the implications of what they say.

Yes, but isn't this what nearly everyone in the case of the Book of Mormon assumes (at least for one side or the other)? Realistically, I think that we can challenge witnesses though. And I don't think we have to assume that anyone is giving us a factually accurate accounting. The problem isn't so much whether the witnesses are being truthful or not. Obviously they are either lying or telling us something that they believe to be true. But, this doesn't actually tell us a whole lot about what is really happening. And to parade these witnesses around when we are dealing with similarities between texts is rather beside the point of actually looking at the texts. The witnesses don't actually tell us much about the texts. They don't provide with any verifiable details. They cannot stand in support of an argument about whether the texts were similar. They can tell us that we ought to look at the texts - but that's about as far as it goes.

And I simply adore the mythical plates.

I am going to repeat what I said to Marg earlier. The question of whether or not Joseph Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon from a Spalding Manuscript is an argument that doesn't need to be compared to the believers version to establish its truth claims. This is simply a way of trying to invoke the angel or call into question my other beliefs - none of which I have brought into this discussion. There doesn't have to be gold plates for the Spalding theory to fail or to be a bad theory. For the sake of this discussion, why don't I simply grant you the point of modern authorship, and we can stop dealing with the three witnesses, the gold plates, the angel, and all the rest. I am completely uninterested in discussing that topic in connection with this one.

Incorrect. Roger suggested that one possible motive could be that Smith was lazy. You did not rule out the possibility.

Yes, but being lazy seems hardly a serious motivation here. He didn't copy the narrative verbaitm, he obviously made all sorts of changes, so laziness in its ultimate expression is already ruled out. And being lazy seems to be hardly the motivation for someone who uses a story but then creatively modifies it - since he knows that people already think he was plagiarizing ... in other words, one scenario presented very likely rules out the other - or at least calls for a more nuanced position. One of the long standing problems of the Spalding theory has been this attention to witnesses and claims, but no real attention to motivation.

Personally I do not think Smith actually discovered anything. Therefore there was a need to come up with something and present it as though it actually happened.

Yes, but why Spalding? Why not use any of the other current notions (as Vogel points out) surrounding the indian mounds?

But let's indulge your speculation for a moment... if Hurlbut coached his witnesses and was not above implanting false memories in their brains, why didn't he plant a few things from the Roman story into their tesitmonies? Wouldn't that be the perfect way to "get" Smith?

No, for several reasons. First, there isn't really anything in the Roman story that is also in the Book of Mormon. Second, the Roman story wasn't published. It would need to be published so that the public could see the similarities. Instead, it seems perfectly natural just to use those details which were publicly available (and so reasonably easy to verify) to establish a case. How do you think including details from the Roman story would have helped him? Which details could he have comfortably used?

The horse is long dead. We think the parallels are strikingly similar, you and Dan don't. Fine. I can live with that.

Yes, so stop using it as evidence in discussions with me. I simply reject the notion - until you find a way to demonstrate it (and there are certainly a few methods which can be used to make an argument I would accept - I am just fairly certain that the established methods won't give you nearly as strong an argument as you think you have).

The case for S/R is complex and detailed.

That's because actual evidence is limited and far between. It's mostly speculation and rather circumstantial kinds of claims. When did Joseph meet Rigdon for the first time again? And what evidence is there of that meeting?

In fact, that point goes right along with what I have been stating again and again.... let's pretend Joseph really did discover plates just like he describes in his discovery narrative.... then what do we have? We have the mother of all coincidences.... not because his account parallels some obscure parchment discovery account written before 1816--although the level of similarity is still a bit unusual--but because his account parallels a parchment discovery account written by Solomon Spalding.

See, there you go again. It isn't that spectacular of a coincidence. The level of similarity isn't nearly what you think it is. In fact, simply comparing the texts doesn't yield that much at all. You are tending to conflate the little evidence you have.

I note that you have not taken me up on my challenge to show that what occured was "typical" and therefore a duplicatable event.

Why don't you first give me the list of texts which were associated with the Book of Mormon from 1832 .... and then I think it will be patently clear why I am not interested in your pointless little challenge.

Ben M.

[_Uncle Dale]

Dale, this is what I would need for such a project -

I would need clean text files of all of Spalding's works.
...

Unfortunately all I have that might be useful are the Roman story and his
c. 1812 draft letter on religion. Here are some links to "standardized"
spelling (but also punctuated) texts:

http://solomonspalding.com/docs/oberlin9.txt
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/MEDIA/ob.htm
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/spld01.htm

Good luck,

Dale

[_Brackite]

Hi Ben,

I have a Question for you here.

In the very long Solomon Spaulding Discussion Thread, I brought up the subject of Chiasmus.

The late Vernal Holley claimed to have identified an example of a Chiasmus, within the Spaulding Romance Story.

(The Book of Mormon is nearly filled with Examples of Chiasmus. One Example is (The Book of Mormon is nearly filled with Examples of Chiasmus. One Example is Alma Chapter 13, Verses one through nine. Another Example is basically and virtually the whole Chapter of Alma Chapter 36.)

Here is (again) this 'Chiasmus' Passage, From the Spaulding Romance Story:

"There is an Intelligent Omnipotent Being, who is self-existent and infinitely
good and benevolent. Matter eternally existed. He put forth his hand and formed it into such bodies as he pleased. He presides over the universe and has a perfect knowledge of all things. From his own spiritual substance he formed seven sons. These are his principal agents to manage the affairs of his empire. He formed the bodies of men from matter. Into each body he infused a particle of his own spiritual substance, in consequence of which man in his first formation was inclined to benevolence and goodness. There is also another great, intelligent Being who is self-existent and possessed of great power but not of omnipotence.

Do You believe that this Passage is really an actual Chiasmus or not?

So despite your statements, I haven't seen anyone in this thread actually look at all the evidence - just that which favors this one particular theory (well excluding Brackite).

Thanks, Ben!

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Brackite -

On the issue of Chiasmus, there is an underlying concern which I have, which isn't dealt with in these comments. One of these deals with the definition of the term. I prefer to look at chiasmus as a rhetorical figure. Under this assumption, chiasmus is an intentional structuring of the text, and proofs of chiamsus must include not just the ability to reformat the text into the ABCBA type of structure, but also some kind of indicators that the text was intended to be read in such a fashion. I prefer this kind of approach to the more mechanical options which deal with the structure an the ways in which the structure is isolated from the rest of the text (in terms of vocabulary choice and so on).

While it is true that some chiastic structures can be intended purely for aesthetic purposes, the presentation of such a structure would need to be obvious enought that people would be able to see it quite easily. This true of several kinds of poetic structures - particularly in ancient language where they get used more frequently. It would not appear to be the case here.

We might get more mileage from the kind of study that the guys at BYU did where they used a statistical modeling to look at the chiastic structure and distinguish it from random chance (given a range of variables applied to the question including issues involving vocabulary, and so on). But, of course, that requires looking at more context than the simple section involved.

Personally, I prefer to identify clues that indicate intentionality on the part of the author. One of my favorit biblical examples is Psalm 82, for example, which uses a number of ambiguous terms in the text - whose meaning early on doesn't become completely clear until the later part of the chiastic structure is reached, forcing (or allowing) the reader to revisit the first part of the text with a new understanding. I should point out though, that the English translation ruins the effect by resolving the amibuity for us.

In the case of this particular passage, it runs immediately into one major problem. The text itself has a natural break that exists within the proposed structure and disrupts the chiastic structure. The problem is that A and A' while sharing the same phrasing deal with entirely different things, and A' begins a new section in the text - it doesn't complete a previous one. A more complete excerpt from the Spalding text reads:

There is an intelligent omnipotent Being, who is self existant & infinitely good & benevolent -- Matter eternally existed -- He put forth his hand & formed it into such bodies as he pleased -- He presides over the universe & has a perfect knowledge of all things -- From his own spiritual substance he formed seven sons -- These are his principal agents to manage the affairs of his empire -- He formed the bodies of men from matter Into each body he infused a particle of his own spiritual substance, in consequence of which man in his first formation was inclined to benevolence & goodness.

There is also another great inteligent Being who is self existent & possessed of great power but not of Omnipotence -- He is filled with infinite malice against the good Being & exerts all his subtlety & pow to ruin his works -- Seeing the happy situation of man he approached so near as to touch his soul with his deliterious hand -- The poison was immediately defused & contaiminated his passions & appetites -- His reason and understanding received no injury --

Now, from my perspective, there is a natural break in the text there where I have put it. You cannot separate A' from the rest of the discussion that follows it. We have an indentification of a being and then a description of that being, and taking part of that second being's desription and combining it into the description of the first damages any normal reading of the text. My conclusion is that the chiastic structure is forced on the text, is not intended by the author of the text, and so isn't a real chiasmus at all.

[_Roger]

Ben:

Yes, but isn't this what nearly everyone in the case of the Book of Mormon assumes (at least for one side or the other)?

Not necessarily. Nevertheless, I think you have to at least acknowledge that the claims being made by the Book of Mormon witnesses are--by their very nature--much more incredible on their face than the claims being made by the Spalding witnesses and therefore much more difficult for a rational person to accept. I'm not ruling out entirely that the Book of Mormon witnesses were telling the truth--or at least what they believed to be the truth, but what I am saying is it is very difficult for a rational person to actually believe that what they claim happened actually happened. And when you throw in all the other problematic data revolving around Joseph Smith, then, for me personally I can rationally come to the conclusion that there never were any plates with genuinely ancient writing on them.

Realistically, I think that we can challenge witnesses though.

Certainly. I agree.

And I don't think we have to assume that anyone is giving us a factually accurate accounting. The problem isn't so much whether the witnesses are being truthful or not. Obviously they are either lying or telling us something that they believe to be true. But, this doesn't actually tell us a whole lot about what is really happening.

Well I think if you are going to accuse them of flat out lying, then, yes, their testimony may not tell us what actually happened, but if you're going to allow that they were not lying but stating what they actually believed then I think you need to note commonalities in the testimony and the more overlap you have, the greater the chances are that something like that actually happened. Which is ironic, because Brodie claims there is too much overlap!

And to parade these witnesses around when we are dealing with similarities between texts is rather beside the point of actually looking at the texts.

This is where we disagree and I've stated my case several different times now. It appears we aren't going to resolve that difference of opinion, but I do stick by my assertion that the context of the parallels is as important as the parallels.

The witnesses don't actually tell us much about the texts. They don't provide with any verifiable details. They cannot stand in support of an argument about whether the texts were similar. They can tell us that we ought to look at the texts - but that's about as far as it goes.

Well I appreciate that concession. Yes, I agree they do tell us that we ought to look at the texts... and then what happens when we do? We see parallels. Isn't that odd? You would think that when we look at a text that was touted (by apologists) as not having anything to do with the Book of Mormon we would accordingly see nothing in common with anything having to do with Joseph Smith. And yet, surprisingly, we do see parallels. That needs to be explained. Our version has been discussed here to some extent. Your version is that they are coincidental. But since the witnesses "tell us that we ought to look at the texts" I suggest they are not coincidental.

And I simply adore the mythical plates.

I am going to repeat what I said to Marg earlier.

This was a tit-for-tat, Ben. As you give so shall it be given unto you.

The question of whether or not Joseph Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon from a Spalding Manuscript is an argument that doesn't need to be compared to the believers version to establish its truth claims.

I disagree. The Book of Mormon needs to be explained in some manner. How did it get here. Do we accept the official version? Do we conclude that Smith produced it on his own with no help from Rigdon? Or was Rigdon involved? I think those are important questions.

This is simply a way of trying to invoke the angel or call into question my other beliefs - none of which I have brought into this discussion.

You may see it as being all about you, but I really don't even know you other than that you are LDS. So no, this is really not about questioning your other beliefs--although I could do that if you want. However your answer to the question of where the Book of Mormon came from IS relevant to the discussion because it shows which evidence you are willing to accept and which evidence you prefer to reject.

There doesn't have to be gold plates for the Spalding theory to fail or to be a bad theory.

That is correct. But I assume you think those who are going to consider production theories for the Book of Mormon should also at least consider the possibility of the official version? Or are you willing--for the sake of discussion--to temporarily abandon that position and argue as though you were Dan Vogel?

For the sake of this discussion, why don't I simply grant you the point of modern authorship, and we can stop dealing with the three witnesses, the gold plates, the angel, and all the rest. I am completely uninterested in discussing that topic in connection with this one.

Hmm... it appears as though you do want to argue as though you were Dan Vogel. Certainly you can understand why I would inwardly question your desire to approach the discussion that way... ? Do you see the official version as more difficult to defend on a discussion board? Or perhaps you see us as lost causes and therefore you think we will respect Vogel's position more readily than yours? I'm sincerely asking, and I will sincerely tell you that if something like the latter is true then you're probably correct. As I stated, on it's face the Book of Mormon witness testimony is incredible. So if you want to argue from Vogel's position it's okay by me. Just seems a bit odd.

Incorrect. Roger suggested that one possible motive could be that Smith was lazy. You did not rule out the possibility.

Yes, but being lazy seems hardly a serious motivation here. He didn't copy the narrative verbaitm, he obviously made all sorts of changes, so laziness in its ultimate expression is already ruled out. And being lazy seems to be hardly the motivation for someone who uses a story but then creatively modifies it - since he knows that people already think he was plagiarizing ... in other words, one scenario presented very likely rules out the other - or at least calls for a more nuanced position.

I figured you'd get around to challenging the laziness assertion. I figured it would come sooner, but I figured it would come--which is why I questioned you framing the debate as though it is necessary to pin-point Smith's motivation before the S/R claims can be given consideration. I think that is looking at the evidence in reverse.

The point is claims were made first and recorded. The first claims were supported by later claims. Then a text came to light, which at first glance to an average person appeared to debunk the claims,and based on that, the LDS rushed the text into print thinking it would put an end to the claims once and for all. However, after further investigation, the text actually supports the prior claims. Once we acknowledge that, then we can start theorizing about Smith's possible motivations with the understanding that we can't read Smith's mind and we are not obligated to pin-point his exact thought processes. Instead, if we can identify one or more possible motivations, then the theory is worthy of consideration.

One of the long standing problems of the Spalding theory has been this attention to witnesses and claims, but no real attention to motivation.

Long standing problems? Really? I don't think so. I think that makes for a nice phrase when criticizing a theory you obviously don't accept, but, in the first place the crediblity of the witnesses IS more important than possible motives, and in the second place I think there has been plenty of assertions as to possible motives. I merely mentioned one possibilty. Another is that Smith was raised for much of his life in poverty. Coming out with a new Bible promised to eliminate that problem.

In terms of his specific motivation to copy Spalding's discovery narrative, assuming he had already copied Spalding before and had gotten away with it, then why not also copy a discovery narrative (making changes where necessary to make it his own) that was also written by Spalding? After all, he shouldn't have to worry too much about the logical flow. Pressure is building to come up with details he had always been reluctant to give (why is that, by the way? --and remember you're Dan Vogel ) and bing(!) here's a pre-written discovery narrative ready to be adapted. Why not? So I see "laziness" as being a serious contender for motivation here considering the circumstances. One must ask, why try to invent a discovery narrative out of the blue (again assuming the official version is out the window) with the possibility of writing something that could be self-contradictory or easily exposed when there is one already written and all one need do is change a few of the details and claim ownership? I don't see plausible motivations as being a problem at all.

Personally I do not think Smith actually discovered anything. Therefore there was a need to come up with something and present it as though it actually happened.

Yes, but why Spalding? Why not use any of the other current notions (as Vogel points out) surrounding the indian mounds?

Now that is a good question. Smith was either confident he had eliminated the Spalding problem or stupid or he really had a genuine discovery experience that paralleled Spalding's---but you just agreed to rule out the latter. I don't think he was terribly stupid, do you?

But let's indulge your speculation for a moment... if Hurlbut coached his witnesses and was not above implanting false memories in their brains, why didn't he plant a few things from the Roman story into their tesitmonies? Wouldn't that be the perfect way to "get" Smith?

No, for several reasons. First, there isn't really anything in the Roman story that is also in the Book of Mormon.

Actually that is not quite correct. There are also parallels between the Book of Mormon and the Roman story--no doubt you are aware of that--which you also--no doubt--see as insignificant, but others don't.

So yes, if Hurlbut has the Roman story sitting in front of him and he's really truly out to get Smith at all costs, then he's going to go over the Roman story with a fine toothed comb and he's eventually going to notice some similarities between the two works--similarities which are not as readily noticable as those between the discovery accounts but similarities nonetheless.

Let's put it this way... if I was Hurlbut and I had the Roman story and I'm not afraid of putting words in the mouths of my witnesses I could make things look a lot worse for Smith and Rigdon than what actually happened by simply adding a couple details to my witness statements.... let's say I add the name "Fabius" to Lehi and Nephi. Now I have testimony that links to both Book of Mormon and the Roman story. I can always point out that the Roman story is incomplete so Lehi and Nephi probably come later in the story and I can always claim MF is an earlier or later draft (which I think is the truth anyway.)

Now we do have general similarities between the witness statements and the Roman story. In fact Roper points to these similarities as evidence that the witnesses had actually heard Spalding read from his Roman story and that there never was a MF--or as the turn-of-the-century LDS apologist's version goes--that MF IS the Roman story.

So Roper attempts to link witness statements to the Roman story but neither Hurlbut nor Howe does! And yet the witnesses themselves tell us specifically that they are not referring to the Roman story but instead to another Spalding ms called Manuscript Found.

One other key element in the witness statements is the mention of the "Straits of Darien." This is important because this name comes neither from the Book of Mormon nor does it come from the Roman story... and yet at least two witnesses mention it. This doesn't make sense if Hurlbut is coaching witnesses.

Now of course, Roper (like you?) thinks Miller and John Spalding got this idea of the "Straits of Darien" from contemporary discussions on the subject and he cites Orson Pratt as evidence of this here:
http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... m=2&id=584
But this is a very weak assumption because Pratt did not publish these views until well after 1833 (when Miller had given his statement) so Roper supposes that Miller must have gotten his ideas from conversations he had heard about where the landing took place, but he can't offer any support for that assertion. He writes:

In his first published work on the Book of Mormon, Pratt placed the narrow neck of land on the Isthmus of Darien and suggested that the "people of Zarahemla" eventually settled south of that location in the northern regions of South America, where they ultimately united with the Nephites.[127] Although he first published this view in 1840, he and others publicly discussed those ideas much earlier.
http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... m=2&id=584

That is very problematic because you have Miller definitely mentioning the "Straits of Darien" as part of his testimony in 1833 and only Roper's speculation that he's getting that specific detail from the "buzz" around him that wasn't actually put in print until 1840.

It is certainly more reasonable, in my opinion, to conclude that Miller & John Spalding actually heard or read about the "Straits of Darien" in a Spalding manuscript--like they claimed; than to think that they knowingly included a specific detail in their testimonies that was neither a part of the Book of Mormon nor to be found in the Roman story. This strongly suggests the reality of Manuscript Found.

Second, the Roman story wasn't published. It would need to be published so that the public could see the similarities. Instead, it seems perfectly natural just to use those details which were publicly available (and so reasonably easy to verify) to establish a case. How do you think including details from the Roman story would have helped him? Which details could he have comfortably used?

In the first place we know that Hurlbut and Howe had the Roman story. And Howe was a publisher. It was well within his means to publish it. So again, if what the S/R critics say about Hurlbut is true--that he coached witnesses and had no regard for the truth--then why not use those witness statements to his ultimate advantage? After all, if Hurlbut is deliberately implanting false memories where is he getting them from? All he has is the Book of Mormon and the Roman story. He knows there is no MF. So why not mix in some specific details found in the extant Spalding manuscript? Fabius for example? Again, you simply take the Book of Mormon testimony, mix in some Relief Society testimony and claim you have an incomplete ms, but that's certainly enough to argue that the witnesses are telling the truth about the overall connection.

But that's not what happens. Hurlbut & Howe instead allow the testimony to proceed as it did--asserting that there was another ms that much more closely resembled the Book of Mormon than does the RS--leaving us with the choice that they are either corporately telling the truth or unanimously lying. In other words, coaching witnesses does not best account for the data.... either they actually read and heard read a Spalding ms that closely resembled the Book of Mormon or they were all lying big time. If you (and Roper) want to suggest that they got their information from the Book of Mormon and newspapers and only heard Spalding reading from the Roman story, then they are simply lying through their teeth, but they're not very good liars.

Yes, so stop using it as evidence in discussions with me. I simply reject the notion - until you find a way to demonstrate it (and there are certainly a few methods which can be used to make an argument I would accept - I am just fairly certain that the established methods won't give you nearly as strong an argument as you think you have).

You are free to reject whatever you want. And I'm free to think you are wrong.

The case for S/R is complex and detailed.

That's because actual evidence is limited and far between. It's mostly speculation and rather circumstantial kinds of claims. When did Joseph meet Rigdon for the first time again? And what evidence is there of that meeting?

Now there's a good question. If I could put them together before 1830 would you then be willing to consider additional S/R claims or would you want to find a way to discredit the evidence?

At this point I can't do that for certain. We'll see what the future holds.

Of course we all know that Rigdon vehemently denied being in Pittsburgh before 1822 and lo and behold an 1816 mail-waiting notice appears with Rigdon and Spalding's name on it! And yet S/R critics also want to downplay the significance of that! That's a little piece of tangible evidence that sure didn't hurt the S/R theory!

See, there you go again. It isn't that spectacular of a coincidence. The level of similarity isn't nearly what you think it is. In fact, simply comparing the texts doesn't yield that much at all. You are tending to conflate the little evidence you have.

Then duplicate it. You can't have it both ways. If it's typical you should easily be able to duplicate it. If you can't duplicate it, it's not that typical.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
So if you want to argue from Vogel's position it's okay by me. Just seems a bit odd....

If it seems odd to you, think of how odd this method would sound to the LDS member's
branch president, bishop or stake president --

"Oh, well, I was just acting as though I was denying my God-given testimony of Nephites
and Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, Bishop!" Sounds a bit problematic.

"You see, there was this Gentile on the internet, and he wanted me to consider Book of
Mormon origins as though I were a non-believer or an apostate!" Sounds even worse.

"So, Bishop, all of what was reported to you about my statements, was just my pretending
as though I had no testimony. I was just considering how things might have been if
President Smith had been a deceiver and a con man." Sounds like denial of a TR time, eh?

I think that the loyal Mormon can only argue the Dan Vogel viewpoint, if he or she is
ready to admit that there is a possibility of Mormon testimonies being false or mistaken.
And I doubt that very few active LDS are ready to go that far, in search of historical facts.

Things are a bit less problematic for the Reorganized LDS -- whose testimony is a personal
witness of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit, rather than a testimony of Nephites and Smith.

Still, even the open-minded Reorganized Saint can only "imagine" so far -- He or she cannot
deny the Gospel, nor having been born again, nor experiencing a personal relationship with
Jesus Christ, the remission of sins, and the continuing presence of the Holy Ghost.

So, if an RLDS/CoC member takes the position of playing "Devil's advocate" and imagining
the Book of Mormon as being Smith's production, he or she must still come up with some
rationalization of how Smith's deception led to the fulfillment of God's will.

Probably the answer to that would be:

"...every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade
to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ;
wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God"

If you ever find a faithful Mormon who could truthfully assume the Dan Vogel debating
position, please let me know. The closest I ever discovered was Todd Compton, perhaps.

UD