I'm going to post the entire piece with my comments in red, as usual.
FROM THE EDITOR:
One of the fundamental constituents of responsible scholarship is the ability to determine how much weight a single piece of evidence should receive. The Hebrew Bible teaches, "At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established" (Deuteronomy 19:15). This article discusses how much weight can be put on a single witness, especially when that witness is contradicted by an equally plausible second witness. [At first glance, I liked this introduction because it suggests we're going to read an objective piece. But after reading Roper's article, I came back and found this introduction to be completely misleading. In the first place, there is not just a single piece of evidence; there are several pieces, such as other comments in Tyler's journal that support his credibility and reliability, as well as the context of who was going around appointing places as future stakes of Zion. In the second place, the first witness was not contradicted by the second witness. The second witness corroborated the first witness! That's exactly the point of Deut. 19:15. I hope no one read this comment from the Editor and passed by the article thinking they got the message. Then again, anyone reading the article without thinking critically would likely reach the same conclusion as the editor here. Argghhh!
When I first took on this article, I thought maybe Roper would have some grounds for rejecting the Manti designation. I expected his approach to be outcome oriented, but he is so determined to reject any evidence of the North American setting that he not only overlooks obvious conclusions, but casts unfounded aspersions on Samuel D. Tyler.
Here is the body of the paper:]
TYLER JOURNAL 25 SEPTEMBER 1838
MANUSCRIPT HISTORY, 1843?