Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,014 profile views

Honorentheos's Achievements


Proficient (10/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges



  1. That's not answering the question asked. You dismissed the very notion of Native Americans on the grounds the Americas were populated by a migration. The same could be said of Australia, Europe, Asia, and almost everywhere except sub-Saharan Africa where the human species originated. So why single out Native Americans in this way? It would seem your zeal in imposing a Mormon worldview onto the evidence is taking you into problematic territory on this issue.
  2. Yeah, that was a terrible paper that failed on all points. The over 800 comments on The Interpreter involved probably the only real review the work legitimately received and exposed failings from it's use of Bayesian Analysis to the abysmal abuse of parallel mania that the supposed points were based on. It's a poor showing on the part of the Dales.
  3. And minus some small bits of Mosiah for whom it's generally assumed Emma served as scribe, Oliver was the scribe for the text we have. Them's the facts. Considering the Whitmers used the Book of Mormon to claim a leadership role in their own Church that lasted into the 1890s, the Smiths battled over the church with the 12, Oliver had a soft split from Smith going to lead the Missouri saints that flared into a schism and his departure into a life in which he struggled to shake the Mormon albatross until his failures sent him back...I don't know. Sounds like a pretty shaky relationship between scoundrels alright.
  4. Servetus was executed for heretical beliefs while Abinidi was killed for telling a King he was a sinner. Abinidi went to King Noah knowing he'd be killed but playing the role of mythical martyr while Servetus was executed by Calvanists to whom he had fled trying to escape the Catholics. So, yeah. I'm 1829 it very much is Joseph and Oliver's religion. That includes the very non-LDS view of the godhead, the hodgepodge of Protestant beliefs with a Methodist lean, ect. It's written before he developed his theology which evolved constantly over the 14 years or so between the founding and his lynching. That's also a point in favor of 19th c. authorship as inserting the divine into the production raises serious questions about this problematic lack of restoration doctrine as well. Whether by a 16th c. writer or Nephites, the problem is the same. The conflict between Native Americans and Europeans was as well. Here's a poem from the same era written by one of the best known poets of the 1830s, and in no ways affiliated with the Mormon movement: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/55341/the-prairies Excerpt: As o’er the verdant waste I guide my steed, Among the high rank grass that sweeps his sides The hollow beating of his footsteps seems A sacrilegious sound. I think of those Upon whose rest he tramples. Are they here— The dead of other days?—and did the dust Of these fair solitudes once stir with life And burn with passion? Let the mighty mounds That overlook the rivers, or that rise In the dim forest crowded with old oaks, Answer. A race, that long has passed away, Built them;—a disciplined and populous race Heaped, with long toil, the earth, while yet the Greek Was hewing the Pentelicus to forms Of symmetry, and rearing on its rock The glittering Parthenon. These ample fields Nourished their harvest, here their herds were fed, When haply by their stalls the bison lowed, And bowed his maned shoulder to the yoke. All day this desert murmured with their toils, Till twilight blushed, and lovers walked, and wooed In a forgotten language, and old tunes, From instruments of unremembered form, Gave the soft winds a voice. The red man came— The roaming hunter tribes, warlike and fierce, And the mound-builders vanished from the earth. The solitude of centuries untold Has settled where they dwelt. The prairie-wolf Hunts in their meadows, and his fresh-dug den Yawns by my path. The gopher mines the ground Where stood their swarming cities. All is gone; All—save the piles of earth that hold their bones, The platforms where they worshipped unknown gods, The barriers which they builded from the soil To keep the foe at bay—till o’er the walls The wild beleaguerers broke, and, one by one, The strongholds of the plain were forced, and heaped With corpses. The brown vultures of the wood Flocked to those vast uncovered sepulchres, And sat unscared and silent at their feast. Haply some solitary fugitive, Lurking in marsh and forest, till the sense Of desolation and of fear became Bitterer than death, yielded himself to die. Man’s better nature triumphed then. Kind words Welcomed and soothed him; the rude conquerors Seated the captive with their chiefs; he chose A bride among their maidens, and at length Seemed to forget—yet ne’er forgot—the wife Of his first love, and her sweet little ones, Butchered, amid their shrieks, with all his race.
  5. You seem to demand we conflate the Book of Lehi project with the Book of Mormon project when we are not able to review the content of the Book of Lehi. Frankly, the theory of production I favor includes the work taking place in front of the Smiths and Whitmers during the April to June 1829 period when the bulk of the BoM was produced. Oliver and David were clearly co-conspiritors with Smith using Harris to fund the project. Smith and Oliver describe discussing the work which included precipitated claimed milestone events such as their baptism, the ordaining to the priesthood and many of the sections of the D&C. Oliver and Joseph were the two responsible for everything from 1 Nephi to the Words of Mormon and Alma through Moroni, skipping Mosiah which was produced before Oliver arrived and likely was part of the earlier translation process. As to this idea that the Book of Mormon needs to be reframed as a work of EModE, I suppose when it gets picked up by a journal otherwise disinterested in Mormonism with the brilliant discovery that it is a hidden gem from across time, then we will see. But again, a book that mixed phrasing and word choice as the BoM does can't be described a systemically demonstrating EModE. It's far, far more probable to be borrowed archaism as is clear when we see Smith and Cowdery using these phrases outside the BoM in contexts where they are attempting to speak with a spiritually authoritative voice. So do you similarly refuse to acknowledge Asian, Europeans or Near Middle Eastern peoples due to their originating from an African out-migration as are all species of the genus Homo? It also seems you confused ready recognition of the BoM as a product of a time not warranting such swathes of a person's valuable time as is demanded by those a priori disposed to try and shoehorn it into the evidence. An Egyptologist need not dedicate volumes to an effort that is obviously mistranslating burial facsimiles. Dr. Michael Coe need not read the BoM more than once to be able to recognize the lack of Mayan content regardless of how much work others put in to trying to close read it out of the text. If there was gold in the vein, it would attract attention.
  6. You seem to want to include descriptions of Book of Lehi project which was aborted after that manuscript was lost. The numerous scribes, witnesses, and accounts of that project cannot be compared with a text we can then read and see the quality and content of the product. That project took a little under a year to produce approximately 116 pages. The BoM project that followed and almost exclusively involved Smith and Cowdery working at the farm owned by the Whitmers included over 400 pages produced in about three months. Smith famously refused to commit to a narrative description of it's production, instead keeping it to the ambiguous gift and power of God. Whatever else we can say, we ought to agree that details regarding the production of the BoM are opaque to everyone and likely will never be known. So what we have is the text itself. Not at all. The obvious influence, the King James Bible, is quoted in the book throughout. The primary participants in it's production, Smith and Cowdery, use the same EModE phrases outside the BoM when attempting to sound biblical. The book itself is not written in EModE but instead contains phrases and markers...like a Mormon prayer inserting otherwise archaic thee, thou, thine, and -th as borrowers rather than fluent speakers. It's not systemic or complete, which you keep dodging. Careful. Cultural appropriation is a dangerous game. A funny claim, considering. Not a fan of The Interpreter, then? Seriously, the vast majority of people with said training, and the fields that apply, are dispassionately at odds with the fanciful claims you put forward and I can't imagine seeing Carmack's work published in a profession journal in the field. So this is more smoke. Experts on the Maya don't share the views of Mormon apologists, Egyptologists are not clamouring to uncover just what else Joseph could have known based on what is provided. Archeologists don't turn to the BoM for clues in where to discover pre-Columbian cities or understand pre-Columbinan culture. And scholars of Early Modern English aren't scouring the pages of the Book of Mormon.
  7. Again, another close reading exercise. The Book of Mormon includes a martyr's tale in the story of Abinidi. Not particularly interesting given Smith would have known of many from Stephen in the NT to the stories of the deaths of the original Apostles and beyond. Christian pacifism was a topic in Smith's day including espoused by the aforementioned Campbell. The wars in the Book of Mormon are nothing like the English revolution but wars between two opposing nation's that is practically obvious fiction for being between two factions over the course of centuries that reform three centuries after they were claimed to have merged and disappeared. That's fiction not history. Smith's own contemporaries recognized he was responding to the controversy of their day. It's not complicated, and the reason for making it so is merely to attempt to extract the BoM from it's obvious origin of production at the expense of numerous scientific fields. They don't describe the Americas between 600 BCE to 450 CE, while being quite familiar with the world of Joseph Smith. The religion is that of Smith. The worldview championed in it is that of Smith. It is based on a problematic belief that the Americas had been populated by a civilization wiped out by the "savage" Native Americans. It tells of pre-Columbian American Christians using old world technologies - all of which contradicts the state of the evidence from archeology and anthropology. It demands Genesis be accepted as history, and maintains it was written by Moses. These are just a handful of the ways it fits Smith's context while being at odds with the broader facts that touch on its historical reliability. The close reading exercise is smoke, not heat.
  8. Calling for a renaissance-era source for a book published in the late 1820s whose manufacture we know came about at that time is logical? The content isn't systematically, consistently EmodE. It is far more logical, practically required for the sake of the evidence, to acknowledge the best explanation is those responsible for it were not native speakers of Early Modern English but rather attempting to replicate the language of the KJV to sound scriptural. The text is not EmodE, but merely contains phrases which vary in their frequency of use inconsistent with your claim. Given the evidence in total, it's clear Smith and Cowdery are far more likely to be the source of these markers than is a ghost. That said, it is possibly positive you've given up on the source being a pre-Columbian Native American also unattested by evidence. Or is it even more logical to claim the gold plates written around 400 CE by a Native American summarizing the history of a people not found in the archeological record, which were given to a European sometime around 1500 who came up with a translation in Early Modern English unattested to in history, which was then given to Joseph Smith to transcribe who does mention th Native American source but not the European? That this account included a hiccup in production that was quite slow originally with almost all of what was produced from this period being lost, but it then took off when Cowdery came on the scene though this has no bearing on the manufacture of the content of the book? That's not logic. The Book of Mormon is clearly a product of the 19th c. It's content are readily explained as such while the evidence it demands to be something other than this is generally manufactured from wishful thinking out of close reading of the text exercises. Kudos to Skousen for getting paid to do the project. But it doesn't force a reframing like you demand.
  9. Regarding the theology being saturated with in 19th c. concerns we can turn to Smith's contemporary from the Stone-Campbell movement, Alexander Campbell: "This prophet Smith, through his stone spectacles, wrote on the plates of Nephi, in his book of Mormon, every error and almost every truth discussed in N. York for the last ten years. He decides all the great controversies – infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of freemasonry, republican government, and the rights of man. All these topics are repeatedly alluded to. How much more benevolent and intelligent this American Apostle, than were the holy twelve, and Paul to assist them!!! He prophesied of all these topics, and of the apostacy, and infallibly decided, by his authority, every question. How easy to prophecy of the past or of the present time!!"
  10. We agree, there is no systemic use of Early Modern English evident Smith's or Cowdery's writings though they apparently sprinkle them into their attempts to sound biblical. We seem to disagree that the BoM also fails to show systemic use of Early Modern English but instead has them sprinkled throughout. The advocate of a mysterious EmodE contributor finds themselves relying on Smith as the source for the non-EModE language but is still left with the problem you dismiss above. The obvious explaination is Smith/Cowdery as non-native EModE speakers were not using it subconsciously as a true EModE speaker might have done, so the usage patterns described by Carmack typically involve attempts to show how a high percentage of usages of separate examples vary from that found in texts also not thoroughly EModE. By distilling each example down to separate usage percentiles, he avoids the question of what kind of author we are actually dealing with whose language patterns are across a spectrum. This isn't the state of evidence that compels one to question why so many other fields are antagonistic or indifferent to the existence of Nephites.
  11. We have evidence that Smith and Cowdery used these archaic forms outside of the BoM when attempting to sound biblical. We have the vast, vast majority of evidence in multiple fields clearly contradicting the notion Nephites were a real people rather than a fictional group invented in the 19th c. for the BoM narrative. The overwhelming majority of people who are even vaguely aware of the existence of the BoM don't think twice about it having been authored in the 19th c. by Smith such that this idea the English version of it was actually penned before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock would be most commonly met with a polite, "Ok, sure" and an eye roll. Attempts to ground the BoM in actual evidence require appropriating either Mesoamerican or North American native culture and reassigning it to an unattested Middle Eastern Hebrew migration. The theological content of the BoM is saturated in 19th c. Christianity, including pre-Mormon theology such that the original BoM before the 1837 edits even contradicts distinctly Mormon theological views about the godhead, polygamy, and lacks any of the markets of modern Mormonism as well as any native American religions of the period it claims to represent. There is practically no reason to assume the BoM is anything but a product of the 19th c. Dropping into this thread, it's interesting that this discussion arguing for an unknown and clearly deceased participant in the BoM chain of authorship is treated like it's the only explanation available. Its a satirical comedy of errors at best.
  12. It's hit or miss in the BoM and not systemic. EmodE is not the dominant voice here. If it were you wouldn't have to tease it out of the text or find comparative occurrances.
  13. Smith used "have smote" in a record while serving as Mayor in Nauvoo: "We have done good for evil long enough, in all conscience, we think that we have fulfilled the scriptures every whit. They have smitten us on the one cheek, and we have turned the other, and they have smote that also."
  14. I don't know. It seems the point is either the language found in the BoM could have been created by someone in the 19th c. attempting to sound biblical or the presence of these archaic phrases can only be explained by supernatural means. I don't think arguing Smith couldn't do this having the Bible as inspiration but then could later on having the BoM as inspiration is well thought out as arguments go. Seems like that's missing...well, something.
  15. Next up: lest-shall. Directly from Joseph Smith's journal: "the Bread & wine was then brought in, and I observed that we had fasted all the day; and lest we faint; as the Saviour did so shall we do on this occasion, we shall bless the bread and give it to the 12 and they to the multitude, after which we shall bless the wine and do likewise"
  • Create New...