Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
The Grimace

Book Of Mormon: New Evidence Of 19Th Century Origin

517 posts in this topic

Yes, and this claim that Joseph Smith wrote The Book of Mormon based on books he had read, is why our fellow F.A.R.M.S. Brethren in the membership of the LDS Church moved the geography of The Book of Mormon to a narrow isthmus of land in Mesoamerica, because Joseph Smith did learn from a book the exact geographical location.

 

You know nothing, Jon Snow (Game or Thrones reference, ignore if you don't know what it is!).

 

I know several of the men who were most involved in the development of the limited geography understanding of the Book of Mormon, and I can tell you that your idea of their motives is entirely incorrect. It was, very simply, an attempt to understand The Book of Mormon by beginning with The Book of Mormon. 

7

Share this post


Link to post

He learned from books to write the Book of Mormon, say his critics as pointed out by the OP.

Yet, he also learned from a book the geographical location of the geography of the Book of Mormon, say his defenders.

 

Joseph translated The Book of Mormon relatively early in what would become his education. He did come to learn to love books and learning and pursued learning where he could (including taking lessons in Hebrew). Of course Joseph learned from books. However, it would be incorrect to say that he produced The Book of Mormon because of books--because there is simply no substantial evidence for that hypothesis and quite a bit against it.

 

As for the second, Joseph doesn't ever seem to have known much of the geography related to The Book of Mormon. He professed several differing opinions over his lifetime, including that the Native Americans in the western lands were the Lamanites as well as much later becoming excited about the information coming from the Yucatan. His pronouncements about a Mesoamerican location weren't really any better than those for a North American setting. It is pretty clear that he was open to multiple interpretations and none of them were based on his prophetic knowledge. Frankly, it makes the geographic consistency of the text much more interesting to know that the "author" didn't have an idea about that geography. Tough to fake.

 

However, to suggest that LDS scholars are suggesting that anything that Joseph read caused The Book of Mormon geography simply doesn't fit with history.

 

The Mesoamerican location came about through specific study and preceded discussions of the The Times and Seasons' article about a Mesoamerican location. The strength of the hypothesis is not simply that it is a geography that can be argued, but that there are important and non-random correlations between the text and the history of that area as scholars are coming to understand it. That contrasts dramatically with any other proposed geography. There are several that "work" to explain the text, but fall apart when compared to the known history of the region (a rather dramatic example is the Malaysian hypothesis).

6

Share this post


Link to post

Joseph translated The Book of Mormon relatively early in what would become his education. He did come to learn to love books and learning and pursued learning where he could (including taking lessons in Hebrew). Of course Joseph learned from books. However, it would be incorrect to say that he produced The Book of Mormon because of books--because there is simply no substantial evidence for that hypothesis and quite a bit against it.

 

As for the second, Joseph doesn't ever seem to have known much of the geography related to The Book of Mormon. He professed several differing opinions over his lifetime, including that the Native Americans in the western lands were the Lamanites as well as much later becoming excited about the information coming from the Yucatan. His pronouncements about a Mesoamerican location weren't really any better than those for a North American setting. It is pretty clear that he was open to multiple interpretations and none of them were based on his prophetic knowledge. Frankly, it makes the geographic consistency of the text much more interesting to know that the "author" didn't have an idea about that geography. Tough to fake.

 

However, to suggest that LDS scholars are suggesting that anything that Joseph read caused The Book of Mormon geography simply doesn't fit with history.

 

The Mesoamerican location came about through specific study and preceded discussions of the The Times and Seasons' article about a Mesoamerican location. The strength of the hypothesis is not simply that it is a geography that can be argued, but that there are important and non-random correlations between the text and the history of that area as scholars are coming to understand it. That contrasts dramatically with any other proposed geography. There are several that "work" to explain the text, but fall apart when compared to the known history of the region (a rather dramatic example is the Malaysian hypothesis).

There is another discussion about Book of Mormon historicity on another thread, http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63965-affirmation-issues-a-read-the-book-of-mormon-challenge-to-its-members/ upon which you may have valuable input.

 

But cutting to the chase, I would like to ask you, objectively, for non- Mormon scholars, how strong is the argument, overall, for Book of Mormon "historicity".

 

Though the church is my life and I know the church is true (and know all the implications of saying that), I feel that the arguments for its historicity are of little spiritual importance and objective arguments for its "historicity" are at the best, rather weak.

 

Just based on what non-Mormon scholars believe, am I correct or completely wrong?

0

Share this post


Link to post

You know nothing, Jon Snow (Game or Thrones reference, ignore if you don't know what it is!).

 

I know several of the men who were most involved in the development of the limited geography understanding of the Book of Mormon, and I can tell you that your idea of their motives is entirely incorrect. It was, very simply, an attempt to understand The Book of Mormon by beginning with The Book of Mormon.

Oh ok. I know nothing. I read and quote articles from F.A.R.M.S. that state the early saints believed in a hemispheric model. Then two years before he was murdered Joseph Smith's views evolved to a limited 500 x 200 mile area in Mesoamerica because of a book given to him as a gift. But I'm wrong.

And now we're all supposed to rely upon you because you know the men who were most involved in the development of the limited geography understanding of the Book of Mormon, the very same men from whose writings I quote. And because of it, we're all now to believe Joseph Smith was a waffling fool because of a book which mentions Maya ruins, which you and the men you know who were most involved - claim the same Maya were not the Nephites - but you claim Joseph Smith learned from the drawings of said book that the Nephites had to be there in a limited 500 x 200 area.

I never waisted my time on Game of Thrones, so I have no idea who Jonboy Snow is, but the only game going on around here in overthrowing someone's throne, is you and the men you know who were most involved, attempting to make Joseph Smith look like a nut - just the same as those who claim Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon from books he must have read.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Joseph translated The Book of Mormon relatively early in what would become his education. He did come to learn to love books and learning and pursued learning where he could (including taking lessons in Hebrew). Of course Joseph learned from books. However, it would be incorrect to say that he produced The Book of Mormon because of books--because there is simply no substantial evidence for that hypothesis and quite a bit against it.

 

As for the second, Joseph doesn't ever seem to have known much of the geography related to The Book of Mormon. He professed several differing opinions over his lifetime, including that the Native Americans in the western lands were the Lamanites as well as much later becoming excited about the information coming from the Yucatan. His pronouncements about a Mesoamerican location weren't really any better than those for a North American setting. It is pretty clear that he was open to multiple interpretations and none of them were based on his prophetic knowledge. Frankly, it makes the geographic consistency of the text much more interesting to know that the "author" didn't have an idea about that geography. Tough to fake.

 

However, to suggest that LDS scholars are suggesting that anything that Joseph read caused The Book of Mormon geography simply doesn't fit with history.

 

The Mesoamerican location came about through specific study and preceded discussions of the The Times and Seasons' article about a Mesoamerican location. The strength of the hypothesis is not simply that it is a geography that can be argued, but that there are important and non-random correlations between the text and the history of that area as scholars are coming to understand it. That contrasts dramatically with any other proposed geography. There are several that "work" to explain the text, but fall apart when compared to the known history of the region (a rather dramatic example is the Malaysian hypothesis).

Very incorrect. The LGT clearly states Joseph Smith learned from Stephens' book about a civilization that Joseph Smith was never aware of, nor aware of by the early saints. Your (the LGT's) claim that Joseph Smith never seemed to have known much of the geography related to The Book of Mormon and having professed several differing opinions over his lifetime - is nothing more than to throw him under the bus to remove him and his earlier statements from your LGT - similar in practice to those who claim Joseph Smith learned from or plagiarized form books to write the Book of Mormon - as this thread is about.

Basically, the LGT claims Joseph Smith plagiarized from Stephens' book to come up with a geography theory for the Book of Mormon.

0

Share this post


Link to post

So will you. :)As a nonbeliever, this discovery doesn't strike me as proof or definitive at all. But it is undeniable that the style of writing is quite similar to that of the Book of Mormon, and the "and it came to pass" phrase comes up an awful lot, meaning that unless Mr. Hunt was borrowing from ancient Hebrew, the Book of Mormon's use of the same isn't remarkable.

As a believer who's opinion is seldom welcome, there are many other reasons to believe. But without the Holy Ghost bearing witness, none are worth listing. On bad days, not believing would be so easy and they are plentiful. On good days it is a joy. But to believe in nothing, that this life is it...unbearable!
1

Share this post


Link to post
 Tiki said: Oh ok. I know nothing. I read and quote articles from F.A.R.M.S. that state the early saints believed in a hemispheric model. Then two years before he was murdered Joseph Smith's views evolved to a limited 500 x 200 mile area in Mesoamerica because of a book given to him as a gift. But I'm wrong. And now we're all supposed to rely upon you because you know the men who were most involved in the development of the limited geography understanding of the Book of Mormon, the very same men from whose writings I quote. And because of it, we're all now to believe Joseph Smith was a waffling fool because of a book which mentions Maya ruins, which you and the men you know who were most involved - claim the same Maya were not the Nephites - but you claim Joseph Smith learned from the drawings of said book that the Nephites had to be there in a limited 500 x 200 area.And now we're all supposed to rely upon you because you know the men who were most involved in the development of the limited geography understanding of the Book of Mormon, the very same men from whose writings I quote. And because of it, we're all now to believe Joseph Smith was a waffling fool because of a book which mentions Maya ruins, which you and the men you know who were most involved - claim the same Maya were not the Nephites - but you claim Joseph Smith learned from the drawings of said book that the Nephites had to be there in a limited 500 x 200 area.I never waisted my time on Game of Thrones, so I have no idea who Jonboy Snow is, but the only game going on around here in overthrowing someone's throne, is you and the men you know who were most involved, attempting to make Joseph Smith look like a nut - just the same as those who claim Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon from books he must have read. 

 

Very incorrect. The LGT clearly states Joseph Smith learned from Stephens' book about a civilization that Joseph Smith was never aware of, nor aware of by the early saints. Your (the LGT's) claim that Joseph Smith never seemed to have known much of the geography related to The Book of Mormon and having professed several differing opinions over his lifetime - is nothing more than to throw him under the bus to remove him and his earlier statements from your LGT - similar in practice to those who claim Joseph Smith learned from or plagiarized form books to write the Book of Mormon - as this thread is about.

Basically, the LGT claims Joseph Smith plagiarized from Stephens' book to come up with a geography theory for the Book of Mormon.

Not enough lime in your Tiki Room specials?

Edited by Robert F. Smith
0

Share this post


Link to post

They forgot "Gulliver's Travels." How else could Joseph Smith have come up with the name of "Lemuel?"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulliver's_Travels#Part_I:_A_Voyage_to_Lilliput

As Lemuel traveled with Joseph Smith, they encountered the Lilliputians and Yahoos who opposed them, claiming his fantastic tales were plagiarized. After arriving onto the Island of Laputa, Lemuel and Joseph Smith were invited to the Grand Academy of Lagado where great resources were spent uncovering Lemuel's and Smith's conspiracies by examining their excrement with a muck-rake, which is to this day being used by anti-mormons. Muck away you muckrakers.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muckraker

..........................................................  

Yeh, Tiki, but you forgot that Swift didn't forget about biblical Lemuel, which by the way comes from Hebrew lĕmûēl , “Devoted-to-God,” a King of Massa (Proverbs 31:1,4, KJV has the wrong translation of the eponym Maśśā’), a city and Ishmaelite tribe in north Arabia probably near Tayma, and mentioned in eighth and seventh century B.C. Assyrian Annals (maśśā is the name of a son of biblical Ishmael, Genesis 25:14, 1 Chronicles 1:30).  Scott Layton emphasizes the evidence for a north Arabic background, citing especially the Jabal Ghunaym Inscriptions.

 

You also forgot about Nemuel in Numbers 26:9,12, 1 Chronicles 4:24 = Yemuel in Genesis 46:10, Exodus 6:15; and Kemuel in Genesis 22:21, Numbers 34:24, 1 Chronicles 27:17.  Darn smart of Joe Smith to invent those names so that the 1611 KJV could be written with such clever variations.

 

Edited by Robert F. Smith
2

Share this post


Link to post

Yeh, Tiki, but you forgot that Swift didn't forget about biblical Lemuel, which by the way comes from Hebrew lĕmûēl , “Devoted-to-God,” a King of Massa (Proverbs 31:1,4, KJV has the wrong translation of the eponym Maśśā’), a city and Ishmaelite tribe in north Arabia probably near Tayma, and mentioned in eighth and seventh century B.C. Assyrian Annals (maśśā is the name of a son of biblical Ishmael, Genesis 25:14, 1 Chronicles 1:30).  Scott Layton emphasizes the evidence for a north Arabic background, citing especially the Jabal Ghunaym Inscriptions.

 

You also forgot about Nemuel in Numbers 26:9,12, 1 Chronicles 4:24 = Yemuel in Genesis 46:10, Exodus 6:15; and Kemuel in Genesis 22:21, Numbers 34:24, 1 Chronicles 27:17.  Darn smart of Joe Smith to invent those names so that the 1611 KJV could be written with such clever variations.

I was being sarcastic. I wasn't agreeing that Joseph Smith plagiarized from books. :)

 

And you are out of yet another thread for being unpleasant.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Not enough lime in your Tiki Room specials?

Yeah, that John Lloyd Stephens book is really important to the LGT.

0

Share this post


Link to post

This is a old thread.  I am just now finding time to read the text of the Late War.  I figured that there is no need to argue about the analysis when I can read the text of the Late War for myself.

 

I've found many parallel that are difficult to discount.  However, I thought I'd share this one about Dragons, because I only found it after reading The Late War. For some reason the archive.org OCR software doesn't see the word 'dragon', but it is there.

 

"Now shall we set our engines at the work of destruction; let the fire issue out of their mouths, as it were like unto fiery dragons."

(The Late War, Chapter 24 verse 13)

https://archive.org/stream/latewarbetweenun00inhunt#page/88/mode/2up

 

The word 'Dragon' appears in the Bible and The Book of Mormon too.   In the past I found the phrasing in the Book of Mormon to be unique.

 

In the Book of Mormon, Dragon is used to describe fierce fighting.  In the Bible Dragons represent evil.  The Late War uses the word Dragon like the Book of Mormon uses it.

 

Alma Chapter 43 seems to parallel Chapter 24 of The Late War.  The description of the battle, the reference Dragons, and the speeches about Liberty all match up  better than I expected.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. If I wrote a paper as similar to the late war and the first book of Neapolian as the BOM is in college I would have been kicked out for plagerism. Never mind that the first book of Neapolian was a school text in upstate New York the same time that Joseph went to school and was still in use when Oliver Cowdrey was teaching.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I was being sarcastic. I wasn't agreeing that Joseph Smith plagiarized from books. :)

 

And you are out of yet another thread for being unpleasant.

 

 

Yeh, Tiki, but you forgot that Swift didn't forget about biblical Lemuel, which by the way comes from Hebrew lĕmûēl , “Devoted-to-God,” a King of Massa (Proverbs 31:1,4, KJV has the wrong translation of the eponym Maśśā’), a city and Ishmaelite tribe in north Arabia probably near Tayma, and mentioned in eighth and seventh century B.C. Assyrian Annals (maśśā is the name of a son of biblical Ishmael, Genesis 25:14, 1 Chronicles 1:30).  Scott Layton emphasizes the evidence for a north Arabic background, citing especially the Jabal Ghunaym Inscriptions.

 

You also forgot about Nemuel in Numbers 26:9,12, 1 Chronicles 4:24 = Yemuel in Genesis 46:10, Exodus 6:15; and Kemuel in Genesis 22:21, Numbers 34:24, 1 Chronicles 27:17.  Darn smart of Joe Smith to invent those names so that the 1611 KJV could be written with such clever variations.

 

 

 

It's funny, no matter if Tiki is completely proved wrong on a subject he still brings up the exact same argument over and over as if he was bringing it up for the first time. He's not interested in logic or truth, but only to forward his pet theory on BOM geography. It gets old quick.

1

Share this post


Link to post

As soon as Matt Roper and Paul Fields 2014 Fair Mormon lecture on the subject is up on the website, I'll make sure to post it. They did a great job at deconstructing the Late War argument and made the author of that theory look quite foolish.

1

Share this post


Link to post

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. If I wrote a paper as similar to the late war and the first book of Neapolian as the BOM is in college I would have been kicked out for plagerism. Never mind that the first book of Neapolian was a school text in upstate New York the same time that Joseph went to school and was still in use when Oliver Cowdrey was teaching.

 

Sounds more like a honking noise to me. Are you sure this isn't a penguin? ;D

0

Share this post


Link to post

.

Edited by Nevo
3

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.