Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mike Reed

Captain Kidd'S Golden Bible?

Recommended Posts

One should not mention Huggins' Capt. Kidd essay without mentioning Mark Ashurst-McGee's earlier approach, republished here with comments on Huggins:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=1&id=600

As well as Larry Morris' direct review of Huggins here, with his mention that Huggins had overlooked Ashurst-McGee, several essential sources, and the importance of things like eye-witness and dates.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=1&id=567

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited by Kevin Christensen

Share this post


Link to post

One should not mention Huggins' Capt. Kidd essay without mentioning ...

I am not surprised that you think my brief/informal blog post (which reserves final judgment on the persuasiveness of Huggin's paper) should peddle your apologetic agenda.

Share this post


Link to post

Some of what Huggins says is valuable, but he got carried away with the Captain Kidd stuff. I think he was probably trying to track down the Moroni/Comoros connection and didn't want to let all that research go to waste when he was done.

We had an interesting discussion with Mark in our seminar the other day. By the end of it he acknowledged that in challenging Huggins and others, he had probably gone too far in the opposite direction. He also agreed that although Moroni did not evolve from treasure guardian to angel, as Huggins argues, there was an evolution in the way the Mormons talked about Moroni-- an evolution from a being who was both an angel and a treasure guardian, to a being who was only an angel. (And he acknowledged that Quinn hadn't actually said otherwise, though he still feels Quinn gets the emphasis wrong.)

Most of what Mark says in his article is valid, but here are a few personal caveats:

1) There's a methodological problem with the way Mark prioritizes his sources. For example, Mark uses Jesse Smith's 1828 letter as the best indication of Joseph Smith's early views. But this letter can only tell us what Smith was saying in 1828, which was fairly late in the process of getting the plates. Why should we prioritize this letter over later affidavits that describe the events of 1825-1827, especially when much of the information in those affidavits is multiply attested?

2) Even as he repudiates an evolutionary model, Mark takes for granted its underlying assumption that Joseph must have had only one version of the Moroni story at any given stage of the process. Actually, several of Joseph's neighbors explicitly denied that this was the case. They said that the Smiths told the stories differently on different occasions, and often contradicted themselves. My impression is that Joseph tailored the story to his audience, stressing Christian elements when speaking to respectable Protestants, and folk religious elements when speaking to money-diggers and magic-believers.

3) Mark downplays the extent to which Joseph later denied his involvement in magic and money-digging. Joseph may have admitted digging with Stowell, but Joseph didn't admit having been hired by Stowell in his capacity as a seer, and he also falsely implied that this expedition was his only involvement in such endeavors.

Edited by Chris Smith

Share this post


Link to post

What Joseph Smith did before he was made prophet is just interesting history, but nothing more. That he may have had a fascination with pirates and buried treasure as a youth is no different than kids imagining they are Harry Potter and waving a wand around today. Most of us grow out of that stage eventually - except maybe when we're in line for the premiere.

That one can find an ancient map with the names Comore and Meroni is circumstantial evidence at best, as there is no evidence that Joseph ever saw the map himself. Besides one could argue that the names arrived to Madagascar by two methods that would legitimize the Book of Mormon: either seafarers from the Americas landed on the island bringing it with them (which is very possible), or the names were brought down by Muslims/Arabs when they settled the island (also very possible). Given that the Book of Mormon has ties to both seafarers from the Americas and ancient Arabs/Egypt, it opens the door for either to be an explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
That one can find an ancient map with the names Comore and Meroni is circumstantial evidence at best, as there is no evidence that Joseph ever saw the map himself. Besides one could argue that the names arrived to Madagascar by two methods that would legitimize the Book of Mormon: either seafarers from the Americas landed on the island bringing it with them (which is very possible), or the names were brought down by Muslims/Arabs when they settled the island (also very possible). Given that the Book of Mormon has ties to both seafarers from the Americas and ancient Arabs/Egypt, it opens the door for either to be an explanation.

Will people place the same emphasis on finding "Nahom" where Ismael was buried? Does that in effect give the same level of legitimacy to the Book of Mormon that the potential Comore and Meroni are presumed to take away? In other words, doesn't Nahom which was close to where it was supposed to be on the journey not add even greater credibility to the Book of Mormon?

Share this post


Link to post

What Joseph Smith did before he was made prophet is just interesting history, but nothing more. That he may have had a fascination with pirates and buried treasure as a youth is no different than kids imagining they are Harry Potter and waving a wand around today.

If you used your childhood Harry Potter wand to materialize an ancient artifact which you then used as the basis of a new religion, your childhood Potter escapades would be very relevant to the truth of your later religious claims.

Share this post


Link to post
I am not surprised that you think my brief/informal blog post (which reserves final judgment on the persuasiveness of Huggin's paper) should peddle your apologetic agenda.

Don't worry, Mike. Nobody expects you to peddle any agenda but your own.

But I have to admit that the solemn citations from discredited Palmyra gossips, as if they really deserved to be taken seriously, do indeed have considerable entertainment value.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

That one can find an ancient map with the names Comore and Meroni is circumstantial evidence at best, as there is no evidence that Joseph ever saw the map himself.

That may be true. However, I think it is far less likely that Joseph got the name from staring at a rock in a hat. But like I said, I reserve judgment on Huggin's thesis. Perhaps you should too. More importantly, you should modify your argument (which merely parrots dated Hamblin apologetics) published on your website:

"Of several tomes available in Joseph's day checked, few mentioned the Comorros islands, and none mentioned the town of Moroni."

....

"Mucullock's Universal Gazateer, 2 vols (1843-4), 2257 pages of double columned miniscule print. no reference to Comoros Islands or Moroni.

Morris' Universal Gazateer 1821 (831 pp), no mention of either

Brookes Gazateer:

1794 ed = Comora on p. 400

1819 ed = Comora

1835 ed = Comoro p 214

1843 ed = Comoro

no mention of a city called Moroni."

Will you be editing it any time soon?

Edited by Mike Reed

Share this post


Link to post

delete repost

Edited by Mike Reed

Share this post


Link to post

Somewhat off-topic, the Captain Kidd song used the meody later adopted for "What Wondrous Love."

Share this post


Link to post

I know a Kidd, good writer, has a Bible, don't think she wrote the Book of Mormon though. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

No matter how you slice it, there is this problem with the theory. It worked its way backwards. It assumes a connection and then works to provide potential (if implausible) explanations for it. It predetermines the outcome and only looks at evidence that supports the outcome. It never answers the question of why this place as opposed to that one? It doesn't deal with the issue that these connections are only observed in the last 30 years. It is a fascinating discussion with a history all its own. And where does it start?

The whole connection between the Book of Mormon and Captain Kidd begins in 1989 with the publication of a column in Sunstone by Frederick S. Buchanan titled "Perilous Ponderings". Buchanan's connection meanders a bit, but as he tells us, it started with the capital city Moroni on the island of Grand Comore in the Comoros Islands. According to Buchanan, the connection (for him) was strengthened in part by the incident involving the Hoffmann forged salamander letter:

During the Mark Hoffmann salamander letter episode I became interested in the origins of Mormon names again. In perusing the Oxford English Dictionary, I discovered that "Moron" (from the Old French Morrone) was in fact a variety of salamander. I also discovered that Oliver Goldsmith's A History of the Earth and Animated Nature, which was available in the old Manchester (New York) Library c. 1820, discussed the "Moron" and also the mythology of the salamander as a creature which supposedly can live in fire. Concurrent with this discovery I traced down some recent research on the history of the Comoro Islands and learned that the names "Moroni" and "Comoro" are both derived from the local Comoron dialect and mean, as far as I can determine, "in the place of the fire." The isalnds have one of the world's largest active volcanoes. Given the exciement over the salamander letter, I began to wonder if there were some connection between the Moroni in the Comoros and the word "Moron". Was the name Moron related etymologically to Moroni?
So here we go. Another Golden Pot. Although in this case, there isn't really even a literary connection to be made (although as with Palmer, the whole connection to the Salamander Letter had to go).

Huggins merely takes Buchanan's suggestion and runs with it. Even the initial suggestion for Captian Kidd comes from Buchanan:

My friend had written and mentioned that the famous buccaneer "Captain" William Kidd, who is reputed to have hidden gold and treasure at Garderner's Island, New York, and in a variety of New England locations, actually visited the Comoro Islands during his voyage to East Aftrica. ... Captain Kidd, buried treasure, Comoro and Moroni-Joseph Smith, treasure hunting, gold plates, Cumorah and Moroni? Is all this coincidence or is there a connection between the activities of a Scottish buccaneer in the Indian Ocean in the late seventeenth century and the development of a prophet in upper New York in the early nineteenth century?
So he asks the right question (and of course decides that it cannot be merely coincidence). And Mike Reed has apparently agreed with Buchanan and Huggins (although he doesn't have the Salamander letter excuse to fall back on).

In responding to this, I assert that the similarities are purely coincidental. I find that there is a certain irony in all of this. There are many better parallels to look at if we are going to look for similar sounding names in connection with the Book of Mormon narrative. The two I would prefer are Camora (the modern spelling is Zamora, it is a city in Spain, where a significant battle took place in 1067, when the fortress there was destroyed in a siege. A reference to this (along with the name Camora) is found in "the best literary work ever written" Don Quixote, which began appearing in English in the early 17th century. Another interesting location would be the city and fortress Komarno in Hungary (also referred to as Camaron or Comaron). What makes this particular fortress so interesting is that it was built where the Danube meets the Vah river, and was besieged by the Turks at the end of the 16th century. We could point out, for example, that this city was leveled by two earthquakes in 1763 and 1783. Of course, it isn't so much the names themselves as the theory people have become enamored with. It is, in its own way, an apologetic argument (certainly what mike has offered us is an apologetic argument).

The problem that we end up with, Mike, and the real flaw to the rather meaningless commentary you offer (and trying to make the distinction that it is merely an informal blog doesn't change the problem) is that when we want to find connections between things, we can in fact find them everywhere. The kinds of connections you offer us (that Huggins offered us, that Buchanan offered us, that Grant Palmer offered us when he invoked literary parallels to The Golden Pot is that there really isn't anything substantial enough to rise beyond the level of what we would expect to find as

pure coincidence. Even after all this time of looking, we have yet to find a map of Grand Comore with the present day capital city of Moroni on it that is contemporary with Joseph Smith. That doesn't mean that such a map doesn't exist - I fully expect to find one at some point (or to have someone find it). What it does imply is that these connections largely exist only because we - the present day readers - look for them.

We don't have any mention in any known text about Captain Kidd that mentions Moroni. Yes, you found this map with a village on it (or an anchorage) named Meroni. And yet, we have to ask ourselves why would Joseph use it? What would possibly be the inspiration that it gave that was so indispensable that it must have come from these not only unknown stories about Captain Kidd, but that Joseph would have used it precisely because of its connection? Why couldn't Joseph have taken it from someplace else (I admit, I enjoyed Grunder's comments, for example, on the word "Cormorant", which he includes he notes because it is "resonant with the name, "Cumorah," in the Book of Mormon". I think in many ways the kind of stuff you write about these kinds of topics is camouflage. It's purpose is largely to conceal the fact that all you have is speculation - and not terribly good speculation at that. We have an ambiguous sort of tradition, which Joseph expanded on. Really, while we all know that you are convinced that there was no angel, your own explanations seem almost as far fetched, perhaps only reaching some kind of value by comparison to the angel story - certainly not very convincing on its own.

This whole connection started with names on a modern map and a forged letter. As parts of the theory became useless, rather than re-evaluating the theory, those who follow it have simply dug for more and more tenuously connected, coincidences, creating a patchwork of theory. But it doesn't actually make a lot of sense, nor does it really help to explain the narrative of the Book of Mormon in which these names - Moroni and Cumorah - occur. We could, of course, do the same thing for any writing (including your own) and come up with sources for your own material that you have never heard of, and yet, by your standards we could assume that you were obviously influenced and borrowing from these sources. There is, I think, plenty of material we could draw from that would not necessitate Joseph's being exposed to pirate stories while staying with his relatives as a young boy.

And of course, as Mike Reed suggests:

Although Huggins cites ****inson's report (p. 37), he does not mention Washington Irving's rendition. Given the similarities, it seems quite possible that young Joseph's song included a stanza of Kidd's buried Bible.
It is quite possible. And of course, it still wouldn't mean a thing. As Mike points out, the whole point of burying the Bible was to "gain the Devil's good graces". Or, in other words, as the story goes, Kidd made a pact with the devil when he buried the Bible. This actually doesn't seem all that similar to the story of the Gold Plates. Perhaps for Mike, the mere proximity of these several partial themes (burying a Bible, etc.) is close enough ...

Ben M.

Share this post


Link to post
No matter how you slice it, there is this problem with the theory. It worked its way backwards. It assumes a connection and then works to provide potential (if implausible) explanations for it. It predetermines the outcome and only looks at evidence that supports the outcome. It never answers the question of why this place as opposed to that one? It doesn't deal with the issue that these connections are only observed in the last 30 years. It is a fascinating discussion with a history all its own. And where does it start?

The whole connection between the Book of Mormon and Captain Kidd begins in 1989 with the publication of a column in Sunstone by Frederick S. Buchanan titled "Perilous Ponderings".

Nonsense.

And Mike Reed has apparently agreed with Buchanan and Huggins...

Oh of course Mike agrees with them, which is why he claimed to "reserve judgment" on the matter, and actually said he has a "thesis of his own" that he is working on. It is all so obvious.

The problem that we end up with, Mike, and the real flaw to the rather meaningless commentary you offer

I am not convinced you even read my commentary. If you had, you would know my reservations.

We don't have any mention in any known text about Captain Kidd that mentions Moroni.

There was mention of Kidd's visit to the Comoros islands--specifically the island of Anjoan/Johanna.

About the map of Anjoan I found with the name Meroni published before the BoM. Why is this significant to me? Because it proves Huggin's thesis correct? No. It is significant to me because it shows yours and Hamblin’s apologetic, which denied that such a map existed, needed revising. Didn't I already explain this to you in a previous thread? I think the song of Kidd burying the bible is also worth noting. Does it prove Huggins' thesis correct? No. But it does add a little more evidence.

I think in many ways the kind of stuff you write about these kinds of topics is camouflage. It's purpose is largely to conceal the fact that all you have is speculation - and not terribly good speculation at that.

IT'S A BLOG, BEN. If I thought it significant enough for publication, I'd publish it... like I am doing with my book on Mormons and the Cross. Or I might submit a conference paper and publish later... as I am doing (and have been doing) on the "Endowment and the Christianization of Freemasonry." After next month, I'll have delivered 5 conference presentations this year alone, and if all goes as planned (my book will be published). Never mind that I'll have done this while applying and preparing for grad school. If you want to turn this into a pissing contest, fine. What "kind of stuff" have you done "lately," Ben?

This whole connection started with names on a modern map

And so you (Hamblin, et al) ranted and raved, babbling that no such map existed prior to the publication of the BoM, only to be proven wrong... by me, in fact. Now you bite the hand that feeds you. Typical.

Edited by Mike Reed

Share this post


Link to post
Nonsense.

I'm afraid he's right, Ben. The Palmyra gossips let this pig loose well over a century ago. All Mike has done is try to put lipstick on it.

There was mention of Kidd's visit to the Comoros islands--specifically the island of Anjoan/Johanna.

About the map of Anjoan I found with the name Meroni published before the BoM. Why is this significant to me? Because it proves Huggin's thesis correct? No. It is significant to me because it shows yours and Hamblin’s apologetic, which denied that such a map existed, needed revising.

Okay then, let's revise it.

No such map can be shown to have existed in North America, in English prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon.

There, will that do?

After all, if it had existed in St. Petersburg, in Old Slavonic, there are some who would leap to the conclusion that that was Joseph Smith's "source."

The point you're missing, Mikey, is that weak polemics don't really require strong apologetics in response. Pointing and laughing is generally sufficient.

Didn't I already explain this to you in a previous thread? I think the song of Kidd burying the bible is also worth noting. Does it prove Huggins' thesis correct? No. But it does add a little more evidence.

Pity it's not relevant to anything.

IT'S A BLOG, BEN.

AND YOU LINKED TO IT HERE, MIKE.

And so you (Hamblin, et al) ranted and raved, babbling that no such map existed prior to the publication of the BoM, only to be proven wrong... by me, in fact. Now you bite the hand that feeds you. Typical.

Oh, we humbly crave your mightily condescending pardon! We kneel before your magnificence to express our gratitude for the junk food.

The hand that feeds us. With wondrous bounty, as from on high.

Oh dear.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran: Please refrain from using unwanted nicknames.

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes, I blog about interesting ideas that may or may not have any significance. I throw them out there because they intrigue me, and they may inspire some other researcher to do some more digging. Like Rick Grunder's Mormon Parallels, blogs are ultimately just starting points for research-- sites for brainstorming and the generation of ideas rather than for the presentation of them in a polished form.

Edited by Chris Smith

Share this post


Link to post

If you used your childhood Harry Potter wand to materialize an ancient artifact which you then used as the basis of a new religion, your childhood Potter escapades would be very relevant to the truth of your later religious claims.

In this case let's see what our friend's wand produced:

authentic ancient Middle East names and words (Paanchi, Pahoran, sheum), the description of a journey with stunning accuracy -- a previously unknown river of water flowing into the Red Sea, NHM, a seaside area corresponding to about twelve characteristics in that book, such as cliffs over the ocean, timber suitable for shipbuilding, iron ore, etc.

We move on in that narrative and discover cement cities, a society with a highly developed civilization, written records (codices, no less), a sophisticated calendar, a long history of warfare (a recent discovery), towers used for religious rites. All of these are recorded in that book.

Even today, after 150 years, we are still discussing the historical merits of that book delivered by an angel, including the recent conversion of an archeologist who is researching this very area where it all happened.

Now we have the other side.... well, they confidently assert that maybe, perhaps, it is possible, it could be that he had heard something about Captain Kidd and a Bible.

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post

Mike writes:

Nonsense.
It's not nonsense. Buchanan doesn't reference the article you link to. The article you link to doesn't (unlike yourself) discuss the connection between the Comoros Islands and Cumorah in the Book of Mormon, or Moroni with the Moroni in the Comoros Islands or your own Meroni. In fact, what it suggests is that the idea for buried treasure came from reading stories about Captain Kidd. And it doesn't take much time, if any, to realize that there were many stories about buried treasure that, of course, had nothing to do with Captain Kidd. Many of those stories (like, for example, Spalding's Manuscript Found put the treasure in the hands of other groups of indigenous peoples or explorers or immigrants). So, this is rather an assertion that is kind of meaningless without more specific points of contact. The issue of Cumorah and Moroni is a specific point of contact.
Oh of course Mike agrees with them, which is why he claimed to "reserve judgment" on the matter, and actually said he has a "thesis of his own" that he is working on. It is all so obvious.
I don't agree with you Mike. You may reserve judgement as you say on Huggin's thesis but then you go on to suggest that you have found something that supports his position. Now, I am curious how it actually supports his position. Do you have evidence that Joseph memorized the version of the song that discusses the Bible? (It is the older version of the song - I believe that the story can be dated back to at least the beginning of the 18th century). You have this kind of connective speculation - that doesn't mean much. Here in this thread you seem to provide your map as some kind of evidence. You write:
That may be true. However, I think it is far less likely that Joseph got the name from staring at a rock in a hat.

I think this is a funny statement. I am pretty confident that the chance that you assign to the idea that Joseph got the name from staring at a rock in a hat is zero. This means that the chance that he got the name from this map you found could be anything more than zero and still agree with you. It could be completely unlikely. What makes it much more likely to be chance is that we don't find any of the other names from the map. This was always Grunder's proiblem with his collection (in his book). He provides us with three maps of Africa (three of his sources), with the name Comoro on them. But nothing with Moroni. He was aware of the both the Huggins article and the Buchanan article (he references both of them in his book), and yet, he couldn't find a map with both on it in the right time frame, or I would bet he would have included it. The other issue is that we have this map. But, there isn't any real connection between the names that are there and the significance given to the similar words used in the Book of Mormon. The name of a small obscure village (not even on the same Island as the later capital of the Comoros Islands) becomes the name of the last prophet in the Book of Mormon, and the angel that shows the plates to Joseph? The Comoros Islands become Cumorah - the site of the last great battle for the Nephites and the place where Nephi deposited his plates? Obviously, there is the inference that perhaps, since, the hill Cumorah was where the Gold Plates were hidden that this corresponds to some tradition that the Comoros Islands were where Captain Kidd buried his treasure. But we all know, after reading the popular stories, that Kidd's treasure was really buried all up and down the eastern seaboard of the U.S. So, again we have to ask ourselves why on earth just these two names - one of them so obscure as to be utterly unlikely to have ever come up in discussion would have been used. And if we want to justify their use by the fact that Joseph might have seen this map (assuming for just a moment that it was of interest to him - in this French atlas), that he only takes these two names - the name of the island chain itself and this tiny remote village of seemingly no consequence - without taking any other names. It is a curious thing.

Everyone wants to distance themselves a bit with Huggins - since he clearly abused some of his sources (as Mark pointed out). But again, that doesn't seem to cause you to doubt the theory - you simply dig for whatever you think might imply some kind of connection. But we can do this with just about anything - to find connections where none actually exist. So, I think that your suggestion that you are have reservations with Huggins thesis has more to do with the visible problems with his research and presentation and absolutely nothing to do with the underlying unproven (and likely unprovable) assumptions that somehow Joseph Smith derived the names Moroni and Cumorah from some (also unknown) tradition about Captain Kidd. It makes for a nice fairly tale, but finding a French map of one of the Comoros islands with a village named Meroni on it doesn't in fact establish any kind of connection. And we can deal with everything else that Huggins wrote without the need to assert some special connection to Captain Kidd. I think that the whole discussion of treasure hunting has its applications. It is the specific application of Captain Kidd (which implies a more genetic connection) that is problematic. And as you demonstrate for us, that connection is required perhaps to justify the apparent (and seemingly coincidental) similarity between to Cumorah and Moroni.

There was mention of Kidd's visit to the Comoros islands--specifically the island of Anjoan/Johanna.

About the map of Anjoan I found with the name Meroni published before the BoM. Why is this significant to me? Because it proves Huggin's thesis correct? No. It is significant to me because it shows yours and Hamblin’s apologetic, which denied that such a map existed, needed revising. Didn't I already explain this to you in a previous thread? I think the song of Kidd burying the bible is also worth noting. Does it prove Huggins' thesis correct? No. But it does add a little more evidence.

You have this all wrong Mike. The original assertion (which stemmed not from Huggin's thesis but from Buchanan) was that it was the city of Moroni on Grand Comore that was the connection. This has still not been found on any map. You provided us a map with these two names in proximity (they are on the same map), but, then, we can find maps with other kinds of similarities. You didn't provide a map with Moroni showed in the Comoro islands. You provided an entirely different argument based on the same faulty notion. The original argument was simply to point out that the connection Buchanan proposed fails on the premise that there was no source.

This is an entirely different kind of discussion - because at its core, the argument over names (which doesn't rise even to the level of meaning or usage in a text or tradition) is only about words and similarities. We can find many homonyms to these words. Homonyms by definition are otherwise completely unrelated words except that they are pronounced the same or spelled the same or both. But here, for whatever reason, there is a push to make them related - to create some kind of genetic connection. We all know that the there are lots of words which coincidentally look like and sound like other words. This isn't unusual. Normally we wouldn't care. However, in this case, it is being used in a particular kind of polemical argument - that argues that they are related and related in some genetic fashion. That is, the Book of Mormon includes the names Moroni and Cumorah because of the occurrence of similar sounding words in another place. What is it that distinguishes this particular argument from any other similar argument? Should we assume that any time we come across any two sets of similarly sounding names that one set is reliant on the other? It is a nonsensical argument - which is why we get the kind of attention to detail that we get - it is camouflage. Why else should we care that "it seems quite possible that young Joseph's song included a stanza of Kidd's buried Bible." In many ways, this isn't evidence at all, it is simply stacking up suppositions in the attempt to try and overcome the obvious issues of coincidence with only marginally relevant circumstances.

IT'S A BLOG, BEN. If I thought it significant enough for publication, I'd publish it... like I am doing with my book on Mormons and the Cross. Or I might submit a conference paper and publish later... as I am doing (and have been doing) on the "Endowment and the Christianization of Freemasonry." After next month, I'll have delivered 5 conference presentations this year alone, and if all goes as planned (my book will be published). Never mind that I'll have done this while applying and preparing for grad school. If you want to turn this into a pissing contest, fine. What "kind of stuff" have you done "lately," Ben?
You keep saying this Mike - but what do you expect? You come here, you post the link, you don't think you are going to get some kind of response? What did you actually expect?
And so you (Hamblin, et al) ranted and raved, babbling that no such map existed prior to the publication of the BoM, only to be proven wrong... by me, in fact. Now you bite the hand that feeds you. Typical.
You seem to have missed my comments, that I fully expect at some point such a map will surface. You also seem to be missing the other side of that coin. The connection isn't something that is just going to be out there. It is not some kind of idea that is prevalent in the environment. You found a map. It is different than what was originally looked for. It uses a different word. You want to assert that this is the same thing, but it is not. You have reduced an argument about a work of literature to an argument about words - not exact words, but similar words, used in very different ways. The words you offer us are isolated. You cannot find any Captain Kidd tradition that actually mentions Moroni, let alone Meroni. You cannot place this map in Joseph's hands. So you do your very best to try and ramp up whatever circumstances you can. You can place this map you have found in the general vicinity of Joseph Smith (why he would be interested in looking at it escapes us at the moment - oh that's right - there's that interest in all things Captain Kidd right?). You have this song that he is alleged to have memorized as a child (quite a popular tune perhaps). But, the connection isn't very good, so you find another related song with what you feel are more relevant lyrics. Of course, we have no claims that Joseph memorized it, so you suggest that perhaps the one Joseph did memorize had that verse in it. You see this chain of circumstances that have no real bearing on the question comes back to face the stark reality that there are many much better propositions which could be made for the source (if there even was one) of the name Cumorah. But you are stuck with an absurdity caused by connections seen in a forged letter. Your argument is just as much an apologetic for a useless theory as mine would be for a more traditional Mormon perspective.

Ben McGuire

Share this post


Link to post

Seems like a game, set and match to me.....

I think the entire Kidd article belongs in the annals of improbable and inappropriately stretched history.

Edited by Jeff K.

Share this post


Link to post
In this case let's see what our friend's wand produced:

authentic ancient Middle East names and words (Paanchi, Pahoran, sheum), the description of a journey with stunning accuracy -- a previously unknown river of water flowing into the Red Sea, NHM, a seaside area corresponding to about twelve characteristics in that book, such as cliffs over the ocean, timber suitable for shipbuilding, iron ore, etc.

We move on in that narrative and discover cement cities, a society with a highly developed civilization, written records (codices, no less), a sophisticated calendar, a long history of warfare (a recent discovery), towers used for religious rites. All of these are recorded in that book.

Yes, right along with horses, chariots, elephants, and hundreds of verses from the KJV. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, so where did Joseph come up with the hundreds of other names?

Obviously this proves he was an ignoramus. God must have dictated that book.

And we all must be gay Satanist for ever wantonly singing BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY and STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN

Edited by Minos
Next Year is no longer here

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, right along with horses, chariots, elephants, and hundreds of verses from the KJV.

And this the best that you can do? How disappointing. We balance off the evidence for the BOM with.... missing horses and chariots -- in a tropical rainforest, no less.

And how many complete excavations have been made in mesoamerica back to the BOM time period? Hundreds, fifty, a dozen, less than a dozen?

We just have no response to your brilliant, crushing argument ....... Best of luck, pal, in your illusion that we are ignorant and stupid.

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post
Best of luck, pal, in your illusion that we are ignorant and stupid.

And best of luck to you in your persecution complex, bro.

Share this post


Link to post

And best of luck to you in your persecution complex, bro.

Considering that we are talking about 2000 years in a tropical rainforest environment, how many complete excavations have been made back to the BOM time period. You made the argument of missing stuff, so it is a legitimate question.

No persecution complex here, just amusement at your masterful use of deflection.

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...