157 replies to this topic

[Robert F. Smith]

jmordecai, on 22 February 2011 - 01:14 AM, said:

Scribes wrote the book. Joseph dictated it from the KJV and his imagination, (and possibly other sources).

"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them."
- Lucy Smith, Biographical Sketches, p.345

"That such power of imagination would have to be of a high order is conceded; that Joseph Smith possessed such a gift of mind there can be no question."
- B.H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, p.243

Excellent points.  Certainly a valid approach, until we come to grips with the substance of the book, i,e., the detailed claims which the book makes.  If they correspond in every respect to known features of the ancient world which were not otherwise available to Joseph, then how do we explain such things as Lehi's Trail (Nahom, Bountiful, etc.) and Jerusalem as the land in which Jesus was born?  Was Joseph just guessing with his remarkable imagination?  How many correct guesses is Joseph to be allowed until he is ejected from the casino?

What would B. H. Roberts say if he were on this thread right now?

Edited by Robert F. Smith, 22 February 2011 - 02:46 AM.

[elguanteloko]

Robert F. Smith, on 22 February 2011 - 02:32 AM, said:

Yes.  No joke.  Note Alexandra David-Neel's observations on TIbetan Buddhism (before Chinese occupation) and supposed "miraculous events":

"None in Tibet deny that such events may take place, but no one regards them as miracles, according to the meaning of that term in the West, that is to say as supernatural events.
"Indeed, Tibetans do not recognize any supernatural agent.  The so-called wonders, they think, are as natural as common daily events and depend on the clever handling of little-known laws and forces.
"All facts which, in other countries are considered miraculous or, in any other way, ascribed to the arbitrary interference of beings belonging to other worlds, are considered by Tibetan adepts of the secret lore as psychic phenomena."      (David-Neel, Magic and Mystery in Tibet, 291, who goes on to explain in subsequent pages that psychic phenomena are produced "in accordance with some natural laws," 292).

My "lol, really?" was directed to your claims that mormons don't believe in miracles.

Quote

True, but it does cohere much better with modern physics, does it not?  You can attribute that to the odd beliefs of Pratt or the arbitrary theory of Joseph, which may be easier for you than believing in a supernatural origin of such views.

it doesn't cohere better with physics because it doesn't have meaning in that field in the first place. "immaterial", "more pure or fine matter", etc... these things don't mean anything intelligible.

Quote

I can ask any number of yokels what their view is about this or that religion to which they adhere to some greater or lesser extent, but am not certain that that would be an appropriate way in which to determine  the formal theology of the group.  Certainly Sterling McMurrin did not follow that method in setting about to write his books on the theological and philosophical foundations of Mormonism.  Nor did Truman Madsen,  Blake Ostler, or others.  That is not to say that sociology is not worthwhile for its own purposes.  But for that we go read Armand Mauss and the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

I don't see your point here...

Quote

Much bears on how such questions are posed.  If, instead of "gods" and "angels," we concern ourselves with advanced civilizations and sentient beings from other planets in other systems, would we be as likely to define everything they do as "magic" or "supernatural"?  Might a long-distance communication device defined as an "interociter" be more acceptable than some form of "revelation"?  Might a virtual-state transducer which has a LED readout be more acceptable to you than a stone-in-a-hat style of translation?  Are we dealing more with form or content here?  What is more objectionable, the substance, or the packaging?

The packaging is part of the substance. It actually conveys it and we call that "language".

[elguanteloko]

Robert F. Smith, on 22 February 2011 - 02:45 AM, said:

Excellent points.  Certainly a valid approach, until we come to grips with the substance of the book, i,e., the detailed claims which the book makes.  If they correspond in every respect to known features of the ancient world which were not otherwise available to Joseph, then how do we explain such things as Lehi's Trail (Nahom, Bountiful, etc.) and Jerusalem as the land in which Jesus was born?  Was Joseph just guessing with his remarkable imagination?  How many correct guesses is Joseph to be allowed until he is ejected from the casino?

What would B. H. Roberts say if he were on this thread right now?

Again, until your super-natural ontological assumptions are justified.

[Vex]

elguanteloko, on 21 February 2011 - 11:16 PM, said:

You said the following: "Actually you do; for as it stands there are far too many unknowns and if  it did play out as those assumptions it would be similar to an  individual going to Vegas, placing bets on all the Roulette tables (not  just in 1 casino but all of them), and subsequently winning them all.   Astronomical in plausibility.  Couple it with additional evidence from  Joseph Smith and The Book of Mormon and you'd have further issues in  plausibility."

I see no super-natural explanation here... care to try again?

Quote

You assume an explanation for JS and the BoM that is more plausible than what I've been offering but yet you haven't stated it clearly saying what I've been saying is adding "more assumptions" implying you have a better explanation.

I have stated no such thing (again, you put words into my mouth).  Do not conflate things you think about me with what I have actually said or done.  I have just pointed out where your hypothesis falls apart.  Fulfill my CFR or concede the point.

Quote

Oh, I've seen this before.... and?

...

I still don't get the point. what am I to conclude from this? there are some pretty smart 16 year olds?

That is one conclusion--easily reached by the evidence with minimal assumptions.  Another is that assumptions made become the vision of an individual grasping at straws to fulfill a preconceived bias.  As Sherlock Holmes is credited with saying; "Individuals tend to bend facts to fit a hypothesis, rather than construct hypothesis to fit facts."

Edited by Vex, 22 February 2011 - 06:27 AM.

[volgadon]

Quote

As I’ve stated before, if Alma 7:10 had read, “born at Nazareth in the land of Galilee” then I would have scored it a major direct hit.

No, you would not have. You would have said that Joseph got it out of the Bible, from Mark, or John, and that it is neither evidence for or against the BoM.

[ERayR]

elguanteloko, on 21 February 2011 - 05:04 PM, said:

LOL I'm joking, of course.

but seriously now, I was talking about people who have some training in so-called "critical thinking".

In that case I may qualify.  I have an MBA.  Your statement was "Sure but then don't act as if it was the reasonable thing to think... it isn't. Plus I don't even think this is the case. If you seriously ask a mormon of medium education what he thinks the more likely and 'objective' explanation is for such type of events I don't think he'll give the "spiritual explanation" answer..  

Critical thinking would require that I evaluate these things on an individual basis and "Angels delivering books" is not in the same catagory as magic show tricks and when all available evidence is considered I don't find it unreasonable at all.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Vex, on 20 February 2011 - 01:56 PM, said:

I was under the impression that NHM was a relatively new discovery.  One that is far more recent than the first publication of The Book of Mormon.  Is this thought incorrect?

NHM is a very recent discovery (within the last ten years I beleive), so there is no way whatsoever that JS could of know of it's existence in the 1820's when the translated the plates.

Of course you don't need to look at the facts if you only seek to ignore the evidence.

[Vex]

LDS Guy 1986, on 22 February 2011 - 08:39 AM, said:

NHM is a very recent discovery (within the last ten years I beleive), so there is no way whatsoever that JS could of know of it's existence in the 1820's when the translated the plates.

Of course you don't need to look at the facts if you only seek to ignore the evidence.

There is a known map which contains NHM from circa 1815; thus it may only be a re-discovery of something known in Europe around the 1800's.

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

I don't have a reasonable explanation for NHM and Bountiful in the BoM. There is no reasonable reason for them that stands up to the known facts.

[LeSellers]

jmordecai, on 22 February 2011 - 01:15 AM, said:

It's not the hits that make the Book of Mormon, ...

Yet the hits keep on comin'! If there were no hits, I'm convinced that you'd be first on the wagon (perhaps fighting with several others here and elsewhere for the honor) claiming there was no positive evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, and that, therefor, it is false, just as you claim now, even in the face of all those hits.

jmordecai said:

... it's the misses that discredit it.

There are no documented misses.

Further, the "misses" we keep hearing about are, themselves, becoming fewer as more discoveries arise on the subjects and the hits become ever more numerous.

One could list many of the XIX "misses" (things antis charged about the Book of Mormon as being "unpossible") that have long since been shown to be correct, i.e., XX~XXI hits. A few examples, like Alma's being a Hebrew man 's name, or that there were areas in Arabia that qualify as "Bountiful", or that the ancients wrote on metal plates, including golden plates, are all it takes to show that a charge of something's being an error does not make it an error. As I believe Wilford Woodruff said, "If my children do not find the evidence, my grandchildren will."

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Vex, on 22 February 2011 - 08:56 AM, said:

There is a known map which contains NHM from circa 1815; thus it may only be a re-discovery of something known in Europe around the 1800's.

It depends on what one considers to be "known".

It was not "known" in Europe if one means that many people had heard of it and would associate it with a funerals in general and with a specific burial ground (which was not indicated on the map, nor in the text of the book of which this map was a part). It may have been known in Denmark, whose king (as I recall), commissioned the expedition that discovered it, but it was not widely known there, either. The book was obscure, and no known copy was in USmerica, let alone in New York, in the early XIX.

To claim, as antis do, that Joseph could have known about NHM/Nahom/Nehum in 1829 should require that they produce some sort of evidence that it was possible, even remotely. None has done so yet, but they continue to make the vacuous charge and then expect us to prove a negative.

As a counterclaim, we can easily demonstrate than many antis of the age used Lehi's Arabian trek as evidence of a fraud, since they were convinced that there was no NHM/Nahom, and certainly no "Bountiful". The only thing, they claimed, in which Arabia could be considered to have an "abundance" was sand. But the Ashton's and others have shown that there are at least two places (in one region) that could qualify as "Bountiful", and that this region is the only one, and further, that this region is in exactly the place Nephi said it was. Similar evidence supports the Valley/River of Laman/Lemuel. It's there, for all to see, but it was unknown in 1827~9.

That an XVIII Danish cartographer created a map with the toponym "Nahom" on it is scant, scant to the point of its being vanishingly small, evidence of Joseph's being able to have seen it.

Lehi

[Mortal Man]

Robert F. Smith, on 22 February 2011 - 02:45 AM, said:

What would B. H. Roberts say if he were on this thread right now?

Excellent question.
I think he would say, "Ethan Smith played no part in the formation of the  Book of Mormon. You accept Joseph Smith and all the scriptures."
I also think that if a fatally-wounded soldier in the 145th Field Artillery had asked him, "Am I going to make it?" he would have responded, "You're going to be just fine son."
On the other hand, if he were alone with the prophet or his unit commander, his comments would be quite different.

[jmordecai]

Robert F. Smith, on 22 February 2011 - 02:45 AM, said:

then how do we explain such things as Lehi's Trail (Nahom, Bountiful, etc.) and Jerusalem as the land in which Jesus was born?  

I explain NHM here

As for Bountiful:

1. For Bountiful to work first requires that the Jews survived seven years crossing the Empty Quarter from NHM, wherever that was. (See NHM link above).

2. Photos provided by Aston & Aston (a married amateur couple) are touted by apologists websites, but they do not tell the whole story. The southern Dhofar region does not produce suitable tree growth to construct a transoceanic vessel.

"The largest trees of Dhofar... all produce a wood that is too soft, heavy, and porous to withstand the rigors of a transoceanic crossing... I would suggest caution in accepting this conclusion for two reasons. First, the adjectives tall, native, and hardwood are rather subjective and in many cases questionable. I personally would not use such terms to describe the trees now growing in the area..."
Terry Ball, Prof. BYU, Archaeobotanist, Journal of the Book of Mormon, Vol. 18, Iss. 1, p.56-57

3. 1 Ne. 17:6 says that they called the place Bountiful because of its much fruit. I haven't seen any proposed locations that provide a compelling case for "much fruit".

4. Most photos provided of proposed locations in the Southern Dhofar region were taken during the Monsoon season (late June to October) which of course causes the vegetation to green. For four months of the year the region has that lush green tropical paradise appearance. What you don't see are photos of the region during the other eight months, it's a stark contrast. You can find these on Google Earth.

[jmordecai]

Vex, on 22 February 2011 - 08:56 AM, said:

There is a known map which contains NHM from circa 1815; thus it may only be a re-discovery of something known in Europe around the 1800's.

I think you are referring to the 1763 Carsten Niebuhr map which labels an area "Nehhm" (NHHM) that generally corresponds to the present location of the Nihm tribe today, about 25 miles north of Sana'a Yemen.
See: Christensen, Ensign, Aug. 1978, p.73

We are still off by about 2,363 years, as we need a NHM location in 600 B.C.


Second CFR, what is the evidence that a place called NHM existed in 600 B.C. and was located on Lehi's route?

[LDS Guy 1986]

Vex, on 22 February 2011 - 08:56 AM, said:

There is a known map which contains NHM from circa 1815; thus it may only be a re-discovery of something known in Europe around the 1800's.

Is this the Saudi Arbia NHM though?

Also do you think that a European Map made its way into the hands of a poor farmer boy from upstate New York within 10 years of its first publication in Europe?

The discovery of NHM in Saudi Arabia along the path that Lehi would of taken was a recent discovery as far as I know, I could be wrong and if I am please feel free to present the evidence.

[jmordecai]

LeSellers, on 22 February 2011 - 09:21 AM, said:

Yet the hits keep on comin'!

What are the coordinates of the place called NHM that existed in 600 B.C.?

Quote

There are no documented misses.

2 Ne. 19:1 (c. 559-545 B.C.) quotes nearly verbatim from Is. 9:1 of the 1611 KJV, including 5 words added by the KJV (italicized). The bigger issue is that Joseph qualified the "sea" as the Red Sea, which a) Jesus also quoted Isaiah in Mt. 4:14-15, b) "Red Sea" here is not in any source MSS, c) the Red Sea is 250 miles away to the southwest.

That's a miss.

Edited by jmordecai, 22 February 2011 - 10:14 AM.

[LeSellers]

LDS Guy 1986, on 22 February 2011 - 09:59 AM, said:

Is this the Saudi Arbia NHM though?

It's in Yemen, but, yes, it's the same one.

LDS Guy 1986 said:

Also do you think that a European Map made its way into the hands of a poor farmer boy from upstate New York within 10 years of its first publication in Europe?

I believe it was published in the late XVIII, not 1815, but there is no copy known to have been in USmerica any time before the translation of the Book of Mormon.

LDS Guy 1986 said:

The discovery of NHM in Saudi Arabia along the path that Lehi would of taken was a recent discovery as far as I know, I could be wrong and if I am please feel free to present the evidence.

Warren and Michaela Aston said:

Dating Nahom

Now that we can show the extreme rarity of the NHM name in Arabia [not Saudi Arabia] and how aptly it fits all the elements of Nephi's account, we will examine the evidence allowing us to trace the history of the name in Yemen. We have already mentioned an obvious method—maps such as Niebuhr's 1763 map that show the name. The story of how Niebuhr came to publish his map is both a fascinating true-life adventure and a tribute to his tenacity and courage. It begins with an even earlier maps, In 1715, a French cartographer, Jean Bourguignon D'Anville, published his great map of Asia showing Nehem in the same position relative to Sana'a [the capital of Yemen] as all the later maps of do. To date, this is the earliest known map actually showing NHM. For our purposes it is also the  most significant of all the maps because D'Anville used much earlier sources to prepare it, notably the Arab geographers Idrisi (1100~1165), Abu'l Fida (1273~1331), and Katib Chelebi (1609~1657). The publication of this map in the mid-eighteenth century demonstrated to the Western world haw ignorant it was of inland Arabia. Aside from some of the coastal seaports, almost nothing was known of the entire southern half of the peninsula besides legends and myths. In what was a rather unusual move for his time, the Danish King Frederick V sponsored an expedition to the little-known parts from 1761~1764. Niebuhr was to become the only survivor of the expedition, leaving us an accurate account of a pioneering journey. Thus it was that his map, made in 1763, showing Nehhm, was based on his travels in the Yemeni highlands. The Danish expedition, working under primitive and dangerous conditions, had only the most basic equipment and methods available to them and succeeded in traveling only in the western half of the modern republic. Nevertheless, their maps and descriptions provided Europeans with the most accurate information about the area for a century to come.

Niebuhr describes Nehhm variously in his writings as a "Lordship," and independent "State of Yemen," and a "principality," whose warlike sheikh ruled over a few towns, together with many villages on a mountain.

In the Footsteps of Lehi, p 14.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

jmordecai, on 22 February 2011 - 10:12 AM, said:

What are the coordinates of the place called NHM that existed in 600 B.C.?

Approximately 16°02'59"N 45°05'05"E.

jmordecai said:

2 Ne. 19:1 (c. 559-545 B.C.) quotes nearly verbatim from Is. 9:1 of the 1611 KJV, including 5 words added by the KJV (italicized).

Not a war stopper, even if it's just as you claim it to be. There are many interpretations of how Joseph rendered the Isaiah (and other quotations from the Brass Plates) that are in the Bible. If we look at the reason Nephi quoted Isaiah in the first place (to render Isaiah's testimony of Christ along with his own and that of Jacob, his brother), we see this verse is not a critical element in Nephi's purpose.

Besides, without those words, the passage is incomprehensible in English. Translators often must add words to clarify the original author's meaning.

jmordecai said:

The bigger issue is that Joseph qualified the "sea" as the Red Sea, which a) Jesus also quoted Isaiah in Mt. 4:14-15, ...

So, Jesus is wrong. I see. At least Joseph was in Good Company.

Actually, that was not Jesus speaking, but Matthew. Matthew was very "liberal" in applying Old Testament prophecies to Christ. Sometimes he was 'way out in the field when doing so.

jmordecai said:

b) "Red Sea" here is not in any source MSS, c) the Red Sea is 250 miles away to the southwest.

That's a miss.

Could be, but there are alternative reasons, too.

Either Joseph or Oliver Cowdery could easily have added the word while translating/transcribing, and it just slipped by from then on. We do believe, after all, that men were involved in the process, not perfect men, just good ones.

I'm not claiming it happened as I'm about to explain, lest anyone charge me with abusing the "as far as it is translated correctly" defense, but it is possible that the MSS you rely on so heavily (and without any reasonable justification for it) were in error. We do not expect that all the quotations from the Brass Plates would be in perfect accord with the far more recent MSS. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Further, we do not expect that they will differ from the record of the Nephites because both Joseph and Oliver (not to mention Grandin and Co.) were fully capable of introducing "faults [that] are the mistakes of men". We Saints often quote that part, but we do not always include the next clause: "wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

Lehi

[jmordecai]

LeSellers, on 22 February 2011 - 11:25 AM, said:

Approximately 16°02'59"N 45°05'05"E.

What's the evidence that this approx. location was called NHM in 600 B.C.?

Not sure what is at this location, as it is approx 60 miles NE of where the modern Nihm tribe reside, and about 40 miles north of where the NHM alters were found.

Quote

Not a war stopper, even if it's just as you claim it to be. There are many interpretations of how Joseph rendered the Isaiah (and other quotations from the Brass Plates) that are in the Bible. If we look at the reason Nephi quoted Isaiah in the first place (to render Isaiah's testimony of Christ along with his own and that of Jacob, his brother), we see this verse is not a critical element in Nephi's purpose.

Regardless of whatever importance you want to give the message, the Red Sea here is still a miss.

Quote

So, Jesus is wrong. I see. At least Joseph was in Good Company.

I don't understand your comparison. Jesus didn't insert "Red" when he quoted Isaiah.

Quote

Either Joseph or Oliver Cowdery could easily have added the word while translating/transcribing, and it just slipped by from then on.

Wrong, the JST includes "Red Sea".

Quote

We do not expect that all the quotations from the Brass Plates would be in perfect accord with the far more recent MSS.

I agree, as they are more nearly verbatim with the KJV.

[Vex]

Let me respond to all of these with this:  I was parroting what has already been stated in the Video itself.  Daniel Peterson would have to expand the details.

LeSellers, on 22 February 2011 - 09:37 AM, said:

It depends on what one considers to be "known".

It was not "known" in Europe if one means that many people had heard of it and would associate it with a funerals in general and with a specific burial ground (which was not indicated on the map, nor in the text of the book of which this map was a part). It may have been known in Denmark, whose king (as I recall), commissioned the expedition that discovered it, but it was not widely known there, either. The book was obscure, and no known copy was in USmerica, let alone in New York, in the early XIX.

To claim, as antis do, that Joseph could have known about NHM/Nahom/Nehum in 1829 should require that they produce some sort of evidence that it was possible, even remotely. None has done so yet, but they continue to make the vacuous charge and then expect us to prove a negative.

As a counterclaim, we can easily demonstrate than many antis of the age used Lehi's Arabian trek as evidence of a fraud, since they were convinced that there was no NHM/Nahom, and certainly no "Bountiful". The only thing, they claimed, in which Arabia could be considered to have an "abundance" was sand. But the Ashton's and others have shown that there are at least two places (in one region) that could qualify as "Bountiful", and that this region is the only one, and further, that this region is in exactly the place Nephi said it was. Similar evidence supports the Valley/River of Laman/Lemuel. It's there, for all to see, but it was unknown in 1827~9.

That an XVIII Danish cartographer created a map with the toponym "Nahom" on it is scant, scant to the point of its being vanishingly small, evidence of Joseph's being able to have seen it.

Lehi

jmordecai, on 22 February 2011 - 09:47 AM, said:

I think you are referring to the 1763 Carsten Niebuhr map which labels an area "Nehhm" (NHHM) that generally corresponds to the present location of the Nihm tribe today, about 25 miles north of Sana'a Yemen.
See: Christensen, Ensign, Aug. 1978, p.73

We are still off by about 2,363 years, as we need a NHM location in 600 B.C.


Second CFR, what is the evidence that a place called NHM existed in 600 B.C. and was located on Lehi's route?

LDS Guy 1986, on 22 February 2011 - 09:59 AM, said:

Is this the Saudi Arbia NHM though?

Also do you think that a European Map made its way into the hands of a poor farmer boy from upstate New York within 10 years of its first publication in Europe?

The discovery of NHM in Saudi Arabia along the path that Lehi would of taken was a recent discovery as far as I know, I could be wrong and if I am please feel free to present the evidence.