Talk:Solomon Spalding

Spalding or Spaulding?
I saw an article in the Pittsburgh City Paper (May 15, 2008) that mentions Solomon Spaulding, and it includes a picture of his grave site. In the picture, the gravestone lists his name as "Solomon Spaulding", though it isn't the original gravestone (the article says), I was wondering how his name was really spelled? Some places online spell it "Spalding" while others spell it "Spaulding" (most seem to spell it "Spalding".) Spaulding's grave site is located in the cemetery of the Lower Ten Mile United Presbyterian Church (one of two adjacent churches) on Route 19, in the town of Amity, Washington County, Pennsylvania. Here's what the article by Al Hoff of the Pittsburgh City Paper says about him:

"Solomon Spaulding Grave

Was the Book of Mormon a work of plagiarism? If so, the aggrieved party is buried in this small Washington County churchyard.

The theory is thus: Solomon Spaulding was a clergyman who lived in Southwestern Pennsylvania and Conneaut, Ohio, near Erie, in the early 19th century. He wrote an unpublished work of fiction called The Manuscript Story, which told of America's ancient tribes. Spaulding died in 1816.

Almost 20 years later, Conneaut residents heard preaching from the new Book of Mormon, and called foul. Portions of the Book of Mormon, they charged, were identical to the fanciful constructions in Spaulding's work, which they had previously read or heard. These accusations soon became enshrined in denunciations of Mormonism.

How could an unpublished novel from Washington County wind up as the Book of Mormon? Proponents of the "Spaulding Theory," as the controversy is known, point to Sidney Rigdon, a Pittsburgh-area minister and right-hand man of Mormon church founder Joseph Smith, who may have obtained the manuscript from a local publisher.

Speaking of not-quite-original, the headstone marking Spaulding's grave is relatively new, a replacement for the original that succumbed to the elements. Or so they say."

Geneisner (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV article
This article is extremely NPOV and reads like a propaganda piece from mormons against the character of Solomon Spaulding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlechem (talk • contribs) 14:12, October 23, 2006


 * I agree. It really seems like whoever wrote this article is pro-Mormon or heavily biased toward them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otter272 (talk • contribs) 11:51, April 6, 2007

This article goes to great lengths to list the assertions of a Spalding authorship but only breifly mentions that the view is controversial. Perhaps dissimilarities could be listed?--Mokru 23:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure of your drift here, Mokru. A reading of "who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon" by Wayne L. Cowdrey et al (Concordia Publishing House, 2005), goes far beyond any assertions made in this (cursory) article regarding Solomon Spalding's authorship. My reading makes it hard to imagine anything other than that it is VERY controversial. The primary problem with listing dissimilarities would be that this article is not referencing the Spalding manuscript, entitled "A Manuscript Found", which is in dispute. No copy of that manuscript has ever surfaced for independent examination. All known comparisons come from interviews with persons who claimed to have been acquainted with it at the time of its composition. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Um... Jwilsonjwilson, did you notice that you're replying to a thread that's over four years old? As the article lacks an NPOV tag I think this issue was likely resolved a long time ago. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Resolved? Ignored maybe? I've become familiar with this only very recently which accounts for my comment here now. I believe some recent work has also been done which may not be reflected. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * IDK if it's resovled or not, I'm just pointing out that there have been ~70 edits since the 2007 post, and it being 4-5 years later the other editors are probably not around anymore and you might be "Waiting for Godot" in terms of getting a reply. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Markvs88. I suppose 'waiting for Godot' might be appropo since religion is the only reason to mention S. S. at all. I see there are other fish to fry (or pull out of a bottomless basket?) so I'll go off until I understand this very complex thing better. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you do figure it out, please let us know. I've been confused regarding the NPOV controversy of this article for years. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Problem
Two problems at least indicate this article as it stands should have NPOV problem status:

1) The reference to "Manuscript Story" (an extant work which can be examined and compared) as the Solomon Spalding work upon which the Book of Mormon is alleged to be based. The correct reference is to "A Manuscript Found". No copy of that manuscript has ever surfaced for independent examination. All known comparisons come from interviews with persons who claimed to have been acquainted with it at the time of its composition.

2) A recent work examining the history of the dispute and coming down in favor of original authorship by Spalding, "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon" by Wayne L. Cowdrey et al (Concordia Publishing House, 2005), is not directly referenced, but only indirectly via a review under the auspices of an LDS affiliate, the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A summary of edit history

 * Up until this edit April 1, 2006, nothing controversial.
 * Then in this edit April 13, 2006, a minor POV slant is introduced.
 * Then in this edit May 3, 2006, a wikilink to Sidney Rigdon is removed from the See also section.
 * Then in this edit August 12, 2006, ''the following unsourced text is removed from the article's first paragraph:
 * "Since 1833 he has been credited by some scholars and writers as being the original author of a portion of the Book of Mormon."
 * Other changes done in this edit have so far been uncontroversial, except for the removal of the term "Spalding-Rigdon" so that the article from this point on is lacking any reference to Sidney Rigdon.

The above is not an exhaustive summary of all changes made to the article, but it is complete in my view in displaying any controversial editing that has taken place. __meco 10:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then in this edit August 24, 2006, a paragraph summarizing the story in Spalding's story is added. Also, some, in my view, npov redacting is done of the text concerning the spalding manuscript which was uncovered in 1884.
 * Then the subsequent edit August 24, 2006, reverts this.
 * In this edit March 26, 2007, a wikilink to Aaron Wright is removed from the See also section.
 * Then in this, this and this edit April 13 - 15, 2007, Category:Mormonism-related controversies is removed, re-inserted and then removed again. The last removal with the explanation: "inappropriate categorization"

Details of the Smith well-digging story, anyone?
What about the story I read somewhere that Joseph Smith, a world-class con man--admittedly-negative POV here!--was working digging a water well next door to Spaulding's widow's home, and a copy of her late husband's unpublished manuscript was soon thereafter discovered missing? Anyone know what year--the actual date if known would be nice--this is believed to have occurred in? Thanks in advance! [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.21.110 (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no truth to that fable, so finding wp:RS for it will be impossible. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Solomon Spalding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070218200210/http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=584 to http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=584
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070218200210/http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=584 to http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=584

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of witness accounts of a second manuscript
1. The Jockers study is a study of the comparative linguistics of the writing of Spalding and the BOM. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHNG to do with Fawn Brodie and her doubts about the witness statements, so this is an irrelevant red herring in this context. Therefore this paragraph is NOT well-sourced as stated by the editor that reverted my edit.

2. Brodie died in 1981 so it is very unlikely that she could have attributed the statements of the witnesses to False memory syndrome because it is a modern discredited pseudo-scientific theory that was popularized by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation which was founded in 1992. If you can find a reliable source that quotes her as believing that false memory syndrome was used to coerce the witnesses you can add this back to the article.

I strongly suggest that you read the wikipedia articles about False memory syndrome and the “scientifically discredited form of therapy” Recovered-memory therapy before reverting my edits. 207.183.181.238 (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)