The Popol Vuh And The Bom

[Warship]

U Dale,

Sure let's concentrate on the phrases for awhile.

3. Common Phrases between Texts

A.

Alma 17

[14] â?¦and their hearts were set upon riches, or upon gold and silver, and precious stones; yet they sought to obtain these things by murdering and plundering, that they might not labor for them with their own hands.

PV I ch.4

For my eyes are of silver, bright, resplendent as precious stones, as emeralds; my teeth shine like perfect stones, like the face of the sky.

�����������������������������������................................................

B.

3Nephi6

[15] -- Satan had great power, unto the stirring up of the people to do all manner of iniquity, and to the puffing them up with pride, tempting them to seek for power, and authority, and riches, and the vain things of the world.

PV I ch.5

We shall shoot him and make him sicken, and then that will be the end of his riches, his green stones, his precious metals, his emeralds, his jewels of which he is so proud. 2 And this shall be the lot of all men, for they must not become vain, because of power and riches. (Precious metals also in PV IV ch.3 as well)

Helaman 6

[9] And it came to pass that they became exceedingly rich, both the Lamanites and the Nephites; and they did have an exceeding plenty of gold, and of silver, and of all manner of precious metals, both in the land south and in the land north.

�������������������������������............................................................

C.

Helaman 5

[23] And it came to pass that Nephi and Lehi were encircled about as if by fire, even insomuch that they durst not lay their hands upon them for fear lest they should be burned. Nevertheless, Nephi and Lehi were not burned; and they were as standing in the midst of fire and were not burned. (Midst of fire is also in 3Nephi17:24)

PV II Ch.10

Presently they [the boys] entered into the midst of fire in the House of Fire, inside which there was only fire; but they were not burned. Only the coals and the wood burned. And, as usual, they were well when it dawned.

������������������������������������.....................................................

D.

1Nephi1

[11] And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read. (Face of the earth also in 1Nephi10: 12,13, 12:5, Mosiah 7:27, etc)

PV III ch.1

"The time of dawn has come, let the work be finished, and let those who are to nourish and sustain us appear, the noble sons, the civilized vassals; let man appear, humanity, on the face of the earth." (Face of the earth also in III ch2,ch6)

������������������������������������.......................................................

E.

3Nephi8

[1] â?¦for he truly did many miracles

PV II ch.13

Furthermore, they worked many miracles

�����������������������������������................................................

F.

Alma 19:33

[33] -- that their hearts had been changed; that they had no more desire to do evil.

PV II ch.14

They only liked to do evil to men in those times.

����������������������������������.........................................................

G.

2Nephi 26

[33] â?¦.he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come

unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

PV II ch.14

They were also false in their hearts, black and white at the same time

C. Is particularly interesting to me ...for other reasons as well which I won't go into here. It is situational and phrase common. Two people thrown in a fire that are miraculously unharmed.

There are probably better phrases in common but my intention was not to write a definitive treatise on the subject so I pulled what I could fast.

G. is also interesting in that the terms black and white are used with the same symbolic meaning.

I also thought B was fairly interesting.

[Uncle Dale]

U Dale,

Sure let's concentrate on the phrases for awhile.

C. Is particularly interesting to me ...for other reasons as well which I won't go into here. It is situational and phrase common. Two people thrown in a fire that are miraculously unharmed...

C.

Helaman 5

[23] And it came to pass that Nephi and Lehi were encircled about as if by fire,

even insomuch that they durst not lay their hands upon them for fear lest they

should be burned. Nevertheless, Nephi and Lehi were not burned; and they

were as standing in the midst of fire and were not burned.

(Midst of fire is also in 3Nephi 17:24)

PV II Ch.10

Presently they [the boys] entered into the midst of fire in the House of Fire,

inside which there was only fire; but they were not burned. Only the coals

and the wood burned. And, as usual, they were well when it dawned.

A very good example! We here see not one but two lengthy word-strings common

to both texts, appearing in the same order in both texts, and serving to communicate

roughly the same thematic elements (young or youngish men not burned).

The common thematic elements, however, remind me of the old biblical story of

Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego in the fiery furnace -- so, let's look at THAT one too:

21 Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and

their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

22 Therefore because the king's commandment was urgent, and the furnace

exceeding hot, the flames of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach,

Meshach, and Abednego.

23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound

into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

24 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and

said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?

They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.

25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire,

and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

26 Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace,

and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most

high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego,

came forth of the midst of the fire.

27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being

gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power,

nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the

smell of fire had passed on them.

What are we to make of this? It seems unlikely to me that the story in Daniel could

have influenced the original Mayan legend. But could the story in Daniel have

influenced the phraseology selecetd by the translators of the Indian account? That is,

were those translators Christians or Jews who had a knowledge of the Bible? Had

some of their previous translation activities included translating English biblical texts

into foreign languages (such as MesoAmerican Indian tongues?)

I think that such questions will naturally arise from Bible readers like myself. And,

by bringing the pre-existing biblical text into consideration here, we remove the

seemingly unique phraseology factor of two word-strings in two texts in the same

order. In fact that phraseology order is not unique -- nor is the thematic element

of unharmed young men unique.

What does remain that is NOT in Daniel, then? Perhaps the common phraseology

of the second word-string? Where both texts say "but/neverthless ...

they ... were not burned --- ????

THIS seems to be the truly unique textual overlap -- but even here the KJV

parallels the miraculous aftermath of the exposure to fire. In some biblical

translations the textual parallel with the BoM and PV at this point in Daniel

is even stronger, in that the wording "they were not burned" is given.

At the very least, I'd want to look at old re-tellings of this story in volumes

such as "Clark's Commentary," etc.

That's the bad news, as I see it.

Uncle "the good news is that Spalding's writings supply no strong textual parallel here" Dale

[Uncle Dale]

I also thought B was fairly interesting.

OK -- let's look that one over also:

B.

3Nephi 6:15 -- Satan had great power, unto the stirring up of the people

to do all manner of iniquity, and to the puffing them up with pride,

tempting them to seek for power, and authority, and riches,

and the vain things of the world.

Helaman 6:9 -- And it came to pass that they became exceedingly rich,

both the Lamanites and the Nephites; and they did have an exceeding plenty of gold,

and of silver, and of all manner of precious metals,

both in the land south and in the land north.

PV I ch. 5 -- We shall shoot him and make him sicken,

and then that will be the end of his riches, his green stones,

his precious metals, his emeralds, his jewels of which he is so proud...

And this shall be the lot of all men, for they must not become vain,

because of power and riches.

(Precious metals also in PV IV ch.3 as well)

The Mayan text at this point is indeed very rich in BoM vocabulary -- no doubt about that.

Why might that be so? MY first observation is that both the PV and 3Nephi link all of

their common phraseology to the bad attribute of VANITY and PRIDE. In the Nephite

text the problem is that pride and vanity were already in operation, and come about

through TEMPTATION from an evil exterior power. The situation in the Mayan account

is a little different, with such temptation vaguely implied, but not explictly spoken of.

The Helaman overlap with the PV here is not particularly thematic, but the presence

of "precious metals" in this part of the PV serves to make to more like the BoM in

general. For that reason, I take note of Helaman, but set it aside and concentrate

my attention on the Nephi/PV overlap. The most significant word-string I see is this:

because of/for power and riches.

The "power and riches" combination only occurs in the KJV in Revelation ch. 5, and

in a context that does not much resemble either that of Nephi or the PV. Also, in

the Pauline writings of the KJV there are various combinations of riches, power,

vanity and pride, but no exact matches with the Nephi/PV overlap.

All in all, the messaqe in both texts is found in the Bible only piecemeal, but several

of the thematic elements come together in some of John Wesley's publisehd sermons.

For example: "All vanity of heart and life; a vain conversation, or a love of the

vain things of this world. Lies - All falsehood and deceit in my words and carriage.

Convenient - Moderate and suitable both to my natural necessities, and to that

condition of life in which thou hast put me. Deny thee - By trusting to riches,

which is a denial of God..."

The textual overlap is thus significant, because of the concentration of vocabulary

in the PV source and because the phraseology is expressive of somewhat similar

literary purposes. Probably the best explanation for the overlap is that the two

texts, at this point in the respective sources, are speaking about more or less

the same thing. Riches and power, of course, top the list for human temptation

and corruption, with sexual misconduct running a close second. The joining of

riches and power is a natural combination and might be expected in any two texts

where these tempting or corrupting matters are presented. While the overlap is

not overwhelming evidence for a common source or common authorship, I think

it is one of the better examples you have so far listed.

How does this impact our study of Spalding/BoM textual overlap? I'm not quite

sure -- but it may help us determine what an "expected background level" for

such parallels might be, in seemingly unrelated sources. In other words, if the

Spalding/BoM thematic similarities and word-string concentrations do not rise

to a higher level of significance than this sort of BoM/PV similarity, they MIGHT

reasonably be dismissed as coincidental.

Uncle Dale

[Bernard Gui]

There will be a presentation at the Conference Center on Oct 21

that will include, I believe, discussions on the Title of the Lords of

Totonicapan, the Popol Vu, and other rare early sources.

http://www.lds.org/events/info/0,8197,726-1-597,00.html

Bernard

[Chris Smith]

U Dale,

Sure let's concentrate on the phrases for awhile.

C. Is particularly interesting to me ...for other reasons as well which I won't go into here. It is situational and phrase common. Two people thrown in a fire that are miraculously unharmed.

There are probably better phrases in common but my intention was not to write a definitive treatise on the subject so I pulled what I could fast.

G. is also interesting in that the terms black and white are used with the same symbolic meaning.

I also thought B was fairly interesting.

Hello Warship,

I just thought I'd comment briefly on the parallels you identified as particularly interesting. Uncle Dale already said pretty much what I intended to say about C. I think it is very likely that the BoM pulls from the KJV here. In fact, when you consider that not only phrases, but even whole stories and motifs in the BoM are drawn from the biblical text it seems likely that not only the wording but even the content of the story is taken from the Bible. It is also very likely that this translation of the PPV draws its phrasing largely from the KJV.

It is certainly possible that the PPV story is a distorted, mythologized version of the historical Nephi-Lehi story. But are the two accounts really close enough to warrant such a leap?

As for G, you wrote, "G. is also interesting in that the terms black and white are used with the same symbolic meaning." That's great, except that I don't think that the phrase in the Book of Mormon is used symbolically. A google search reveals that the exact phrase "black and white, bond and free" was used as early as 1851[/url, and became fairly popular in the 1860's. A Yahoo search pushes the date back further still, to 1846. A similar phrase, "black and white, slave and free" was known in 1830. Unfortunately, the selection of pre-1830 online books that are searchable is very limited. But I suspect that a further search would discover that use of this word-string predates the BoM.

Regardless of whether the word-string predates the BoM, or the BoM divinely anticipated the civil rights movement and the writings of Frederick Douglass by 16 years, the point is that this word-string was regularly used in the mid-1800's to refer to people of black skin and white skin. That, I suspect is precisely what it would have called to mind for 19th century readers of the BoM. And of course, it is precisely what it calls to mind for me even today. If we are not intended to read race into this passage, then why would God/Joseph Smith use language so precisely similar to the rhetoric of the Civil Rights movement? No, I think we are meant to read race here, and I think that by even suggesting otherwise, you undercut one the BoM's strongest statements in favor of racial equality.

As for letter B, it is interesting that both texts refer to precious metals, but I'm not certain that the same metals are intended in both texts. From what I have heard of the Maya, gold and even silver were not particularly precious to them. Copper is a more likely referent, IMHO.

The most significant word-string I see is this:

because of/for power and riches.

The "power and riches" combination only occurs in the KJV in Revelation ch. 5, and

in a context that does not much resemble either that of Nephi or the PV. Also, in

the Pauline writings of the KJV there are various combinations of riches, power,

vanity and pride, but no exact matches with the Nephi/PV overlap.

All in all, the messaqe in both texts is found in the Bible only piecemeal, but several

of the thematic elements come together in some of John Wesley's publisehd sermons.

For example: "All vanity of heart and life; a vain conversation, or a love of the

vain things of this world. Lies - All falsehood and deceit in my words and carriage.

Convenient - Moderate and suitable both to my natural necessities, and to that

condition of life in which thou hast put me. Deny thee - By trusting to riches,

which is a denial of God..."

The textual overlap is thus significant, because of the concentration of vocabulary

in the PV source and because the phraseology is expressive of somewhat similar

literary purposes. Probably the best explanation for the overlap is that the two

texts, at this point in the respective sources, are speaking about more or less

the same thing. Riches and power, of course, top the list for human temptation

and corruption, with sexual misconduct running a close second. The joining of

riches and power is a natural combination and might be expected in any two texts

where these tempting or corrupting matters are presented. While the overlap is

not overwhelming evidence for a common source or common authorship, I think

it is one of the better examples you have so far listed.

"Power and riches" is an interesting word string, but far from unique. I know the google card is getting a little tired, but I'm gonna play it anyway: I found 1100 out-of-copyright books, many (half?) of them dating from the 1800's, that contain the same string. A number of them are just quoting Revelation, but not all of them by any means.

Take these comments for what they're worth.

-CK

[Uncle Dale]

I know the google card is getting a little tired...

-CK

You might want to take a closer look on Google Books, at

The Works of Vicesimus Knox... London, 1824 --

beginning with "vain things of the world" on line 2 of page 305.

See also pages with "pride," "vanity," "pearl of great price," etc.

UD

[Chris Smith]

You might want to take a closer look on Google Books, at

The Works of Vicesimus Knox... London, 1824 --

beginning with "vain things of the world" on line 2 of page 305.

See also pages with "pride," "vanity," "pearl of great price," etc.

UD

For some reason I can't access that one. However, I did find the same word string in Jonathan Edwards.

-CK

[why me]

Of course if we think that there is a god, can we not say that god is speaking his thoughts to different people who are then jotting them down for all to hear and read? Can we not also think that the comparisons in these texts, are perhaps just what they are: God's voice to his people. That of course would also go for Daniel.

Of course, I am just a simpleton, a humble servant on this board whose intellect cannot reach the intellectual heights of the critics on this board. But it is my thought on the subject.

[Uncle Dale]

Of course if we think that there is a god, can we not say that god is speaking his thoughts to different people who are then jotting them down for all to hear and read? Can we not also think that the comparisons in these texts, are perhaps just what they are: God's voice to his people. That of course would also go for Daniel.

Of course, I am just a simpleton, a humble servant on this board whose intellect cannot reach the intellectual heights of the critics on this board. But it is my thought on the subject.

Actually, I think Warship is doing us a great favor here. He is beginning to establish a

sort of level playing field, on which Spalding advocates and the LDS faithful can discuss

whether or not Book of Mormon textual similarities to other books are relevant or not.

Of course, we'll have to go through this process about 100 more times, with about

100 other books, before we will have agreed upon about how much (and what sort of)

textual similarities occur by chance, at random, in other books vaguely like the BoM.

I keep wondering, however, if a Maya Indian having a working knowledge of Spanish

(or even English) who was relating his people's written or oral traditions would choose

to tell us those legends using word-strings such as "into the midst of" or such as

"the vain things of the world." ???

If we see language like that in the translated pages of the PV, I would be more prone

to credit the phraseology to the experience and culture of the translators, than

I would to God (or to the ancient Indians).

If the PV text as we have it now is truly an artifact of preColumbian times, then I

guess we can be sure that episodes from the Book of Daniel and other biblical stories

were not injected into that narrative BEFORE the English text was prepared. I bring

this point to the forefront, because we have so many times in the past come up

disappointed when we went looking for true preColumbian Indian accounts of Noah's

Flood or of the building of the Tower of Babel, or of Adam and Eve, etc. Each time

those sorts of stories are claimed as true ancient Indian traditions we can trace

them back only so far into the past as to the overzealous letters of some Spanish

friar, or some other equally unreliable early European-American source.

If the PV, the Book of Daniel, and the Book of Mormon all tell similar stories about

unburnt young men who were thrown into fiery furnaces, I may indeed choose to

attribute that multiple phenomenon to God's handiwork.

Or, I might attribute it to something else... right?

Uncle Dale

[why me]

If the PV text as we have it now is truly an artifact of preColumbian times, then I

guess we can be sure that episodes from the Book of Daniel and other biblical stories

were not injected into that narrative BEFORE the English text was prepared. I bring

this point to the forefront, because we have so many times in the past come up

disappointed when we went looking for true preColumbian Indian accounts of Noah's

Flood or of the building of the Tower of Babel, or of Adam and Eve, etc. Each time

those sorts of stories are claimed as true ancient Indian traditions we can trace

them back only so far into the past as to the overzealous letters of some Spanish

friar, or some other equally unreliable early European-American source.

If the PV, the Book of Daniel, and the Book of Mormon all tell similar stories about

unburnt young men who were thrown into fiery furnaces, I may indeed choose to

attribute that multiple phenomenon to God's handiwork.

Or, I might attribute it to something else... right?

Uncle Dale

Have faith Uncle Dale. It is truly remarkable that such similiarities exist especially in he Popol Vuh and in the Book of Mormon since both have similiar roots. The book of mormon is an enigma. And this is what makes the book a work of genius. How to explain it? You have spent years in your search for an explanation and yet, it has come to naught so far.

Who knows Uncle Dale, maybe god is talking to his people through such books as the popol vuh and the bofm.

Warship and the Popol Vuh do put a dent in your spaulding comparison. Warship is not warship for pleasure.

[Uncle Dale]

Warship and the Popol Vuh do put a dent in your spaulding comparison.

Warship is not warship for pleasure.

You say eeeither and I say eiiither....

I see no "dent," because neighbors of the writers of the PV did NOT

accuse THEM in 1832-33 of having contributed to the Book of Mormon;

and ten dozen Mormon apologists have not written books claiming

that there was only ever ONE manuscript of the PV and that it reads

NOTHING AT ALL like the BoM. Like it or not, Spalding is a special case,

a special case so interwoven with our Latter Day Saint literary past that

we will never be able to shake it off as some forgetable oddity.

But I do begin to fathom a sort of "wider context" in which we all

shall have to function from now on, be it for better or for worse.

Let us just hope that one day Google Books does not discover and

place on the web, the pages of an old, pre-1830 book containing

the words Nephite and Lamanite.

If THAT ever happens, we shall soon make the same discovery ourselves,

and Bro. Warship's ground-work may take on an unexpected new importance.

Happy Goooogling,

Your Uncle Dale

[why me]

You say eeeither and I say eiiither....

I see no "dent," because neighbors of the writers of the PV did NOT

accuse THEM in 1832-33 of having contributed to the Book of Mormon;

and ten dozen Mormon apologists have not written books claiming

that there was only ever ONE manuscript of the PV and that it reads

NOTHING AT ALL like the BoM. Like it or not, Spalding is a special case,

a special case so interwoven with our Latter Day Saint literary past that

we will never be able to shake it off as some forgetable oddity.

Who knows what happened at the time the Popol Vuh was written. The problem today and at the time of JS, is that people needed/need to challenge the story to preserve their own identities. The past critics could not let the book stand for what it claimed to be. Why? This would be a good question to ask and try to answer. What is the big deal with a man claiming to see an angel and eventually putting forth a book from that first meeting? Why the fuss? Unfortunately many people have spent hours and hours, years and years attempting to disprove the book and all to no avail...and that goes for the critics during Joseph's time. Why are some people possessed to disprove that book?

My solution: Let mormons be mormons...let them have their book and let them enjoy it and let that book bring them peace. Let it be their Popol Vuh. Who gives a heck who wrote it and lets all have a non-alcoholic drinking party at Uncle Dale's place.

[Chris Smith]

My solution: Let mormons be mormons...let them have their book and let them enjoy it and let that book bring them peace. Let it be their Popol Vuh. Who gives a heck who wrote it and lets all have a non-alcoholic drinking party.

You just wanted an excuse to use that smiley.

[why me]

You just wanted an excuse to use that smiley.

Notice I edited my post to include the party place! <<<<Oh those ocean waves and uncle's dale's hula girls....

[Uncle Dale]

My solution: Let mormons be mormons...

My feelings exactly. And, along with that, let the LDS topmost leaders pledge

that they will never again attempt to establish a theocracy; nor anything whatsoever

like the secret Council of Fifty; nor will ever claim the right to save the US Constitution

as it "hangs by a thread;" nor re-establish the Nauvoo Legion (even as Blackwater

Security"); nor work to become the political Kingdom of God on earth, which shall

roll through the world, crushing all other religions and governments.

Once that God-given revelation is safely published in the D&C, and sustained in

General Conference by all the quorums and members, then sure ---

Let the Mormons be Mormons, and quit trying to expose all their "secrets."

THEN we can go to item number two on the separation of church and state list.

"Uncle "item number two being John Calvin's Geneva, I suppose -- but that's long-gone" Dale

[why me]

My feelings exactly. And, along with that, let the LDS topmost leaders pledge

that they will never again attempt to establish a theocracy; nor anything whatsoever

like the secret Council of Fifty; nor will ever claim the right to save the US Constitution

as it "hangs by a thread;" nor re-establish the Nauvoo Legion (even as Blackwater

Security"); nor work to become the political Kingdom of God on earth, which shall

roll through the world, crushing all other religions and governments.

Once that God-given revelation is safely published in the D&C, and sustained in

General Conference by all the quorums and members, then sure ---

Let the Mormons be Mormons, and quit trying to expose all their "secrets."

THEN we can go to item number two on the separation of church and state list.

"Uncle "item number two being John Calvin's Geneva, I suppose -- but that's long-gone" Dale

Don't worry Uncle Dale, the lds are now much more mellow. The lds are a peaceful group of people who only wish to establish an Augustine city of god on the face of this earth. They wish to preserve the US constitution (at least the US mormons do) because they recognize it as a work from god. I can give you my assurance that your concerns are not well founded. The lds have moved on from those days located in the past and have embraced a new dispensation of peaceful relations with all churches, exhibiting a new openness as found in Bushman. And this I know, for as sure as I am sitting here at my computer with the dark sky above me, I can give you my word.

Now can we party!!

[Uncle Dale]

...I can give you my word.

Now can we party!!

Good -- now the RLDS can be the one true church, seize power in Washington DC,

and from there conquer the world (just as has been prophesied all along!)...

Uncle Dale -- you have been warned about derailing Warship's threads once already.

A word to the wise should be sufficient -- Phobos

[why me]

The thing is Uncle Dale, warship brought up a good point. It needs to be pinned somewhere. You were very convincing in your spaulding theory and maybe you will find something someday. But I will go by my original statement, all critics have received opposite answers from lds apologists. And this is what is important for the lds lurkers on this board. No one can give the knockout punch to the book of mormon regardless how slick the critics story is.

I say: One must not give up faith too easily and I know that you agree with this. Who knows what will be found in the future but for now, the book of mormon stands for what it is. And the Popol Vuh helps it along.

[Uncle Dale]

No one can give the knockout punch to the book of mormon regardless how slick the critics story is.

If that is anybody's purpose, then of course they will fail.

On the other hand, how many Roman Catholics do you nowadays see who are

defending the Church's old temporal powers, based upon the Donation of Constantine?

That one took five hundred years and five thousand Lutheran and Reformed

writers to shoot down. These things take time.

On the other hand, the RLDS went from President Israel A. Smith's passionate

testimony of (and published proofs for) the BoM, to CoC's "non-denial" denials

in the space of three generations.

Historical and theological ideas generally have little power in and of themselves.

Karl Marx established no governments; Buddah built no stupas. It is only when

those IDEAS fall into the hand of zealous politicians that they are implemented

with great results. Marx had his Lenin; the Buddah had his Bodhidharma.

And anti-Mormonism has its... what? Ed Decker?

Uncle "excuse me, I just fell on the floor in a laughing fit" Dale

[johndoe]

I read a Spanish translation of the PV years ago and was frankly not impressed with similarities between it and the BoM. If we look hard enough, I think we could find similarities between the BoM and any mythological creation account. I agree wholeheartedly with Brant Gardner's comment early in this thread.

The similiarities in language are also not so impressive in the Spanish translation (which I still have) than the English versions. It should be remembered that English isn't the original language for either document (assuming BoM historicity).

[Uncle Dale]

I read a Spanish translation of the PV years ago and was frankly not impressed with similarities between it and the BoM. If we look hard enough, I think we could find similarities between the BoM and any mythological creation account. I agree wholeheartedly with Brant Gardner's comment early in this thread.

The similiarities in language are also not so impressive in the Spanish translation (which I still have) than the English versions. It should be remembered that English isn't the original language for either document (assuming BoM historicity).

But then again, I think that Warship concedes such points. If he has any hopes that the PV

will eventually shed new light upon the antiquity of the BoM, he puts those ideas off to one side,

while he argues the view that any two books written upon somewhat similiar subject matter,

in the same language, will just naturally contain a certain, basic level of textual similarity.

Since that is Warship's initial argument, it falls to folks like myself to somehow demonstrate

that the writers and/or texts we believe to be somewhow related to the BoM, rise above that

basic level of texual similarity, expected before ever a word is read from them.

If Warship gets around to arguing that the PV is a Lamanite document, or some such absurdity,

I'll leave him to discuss those odd notions with posters like yourself.

Right now I'm trying to get my mind around the fact that the English version of that

book does contain lengthy word-strings similar to some phraseology in the BoM.

UD

[why me]

If Warship gets around to arguing that the PV is a Lamanite document, or some such absurdity,

I'll leave him to discuss those odd notions with posters like yourself.

Right now I'm trying to get my mind around the fact that the English version of that

book does contain lengthy word-strings similar to some phraseology in the BoM.

UD

And why would you consider it to be an absurdity if warship does such a thing? Nothing is an absurdity unless it is proven an absurdity. Am I right?

I can understand your problem Uncle Dale. The similiarity is something to get your mind around and it will be important for you to debunk or explain to reclaim the high ground.

[Warship]

Uncle Dale,

I think that Warship concedes such points. If he has any hopes that the PV

will eventually shed new light upon the antiquity of the BoM, he puts those ideas off to one side,

while he argues the view that any two books written upon somewhat similiar subject matter,

in the same language, will just naturally contain a certain, basic level of textual similarity.

Since that is Warship's initial argument, it falls to folks like myself to somehow demonstrate

that the writers and/or texts we believe to be somewhow related to the BoM, rise above that

basic level of texual similarity, expected before ever a word is read from them.

You hit the nail on the head. I am very happy to see that you accept this point. While I do think that study of the popol vuh might very well bear some fruit as the list of correlations shows real promise, my main point in writing the post is summed up very well by your statement above. With your expertise in textual analysis it would be nice if you read the Popol Vuh and told us what you think Dale. That would be interesting.

I know about the probable influence of the bible on the popol vuh. I accept that but I also know that it cannot necessarily be proven and many have said that suggesting the Mayans of being incapable of creating the popol vuh based on the native culture is insulting. Others have said that it being written in the Quiche tongue is proof that it is an indigenous product. Ofcourse that tongue was penned in Latin so I find it hard to exclude influence. But hieroglyphics and art objects have been found from a preconquest period that depict stories in the Popol Vuh. I do not know how much of its content can be found in this more authenticating manner though. I certainly allow for biblical influence, not mentioning it was part of "loading the dice".

I'd like to point out that biblical influence would not explain all the extrabiblical correlations with bom.

I agree with you that the brothers in the fire in the popul vuh and Lehi and Nephi in the fire in the BOM show similarities to the bible. I have heard that about the nephi Lehi story by critics many times. While I agree there the similarities you pointed out, IMO the Lehi Nephi episode is more of a reference to a different event and not that of Daniel. I won't go into that here bc it is topic of a whole other thread. Suffice to say, I believe your postion on this matter to be a safe and reasonable one.

The vanity. The similar text you brought up was interesting. I still think it is interesting how loaded those two verses are. But I find other things, like the reason for the destruction of the tribes on the hill in the popol vuh is the same as that in the bom, to be more interesting. Both cite wronged forefathers as the reason for the animosity and agression.

I will go back thru your posts to see if I missed anything you specifically wanted to know.

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale,

I will go back thru your posts to see if I missed anything you specifically wanted to know.

I think we are pretty much on the same ground here, so far.

Regardless of how much the PV English text may have been influenced by the Bible

and by the personal experiences of its translators, I am most interested in how much

it overlaps with the Book of Mormon, in terms of theme, vocabulary and purposes.

Probably you do not have the time and inclination to chart that out for the

entire English PV text and for the entire BoM text -- neither do I. In the

next few days I'll be lucky if I find enough free time just to browse the book.

However -- you probably can do this much. Photocopy (or print out) the

three or four pages from the PV that you see as having the greatest

concentration of BoM language in them --- and then go through those few

pages, underlining every BoM word and double underlining every BoM word-string.

This will provide you with a rough idea of the total textual overlap with the BoM

in those few pages. It may take an hour or two to finish the look-ups and

underlines, but you will have a valuable and useful tool in your hands for

future discussion.

If you have the time, also make a list of where in the BoM the word-strings

from those few pages occur. If there is a contration of the overlap in a

particular section of the BoM, that may be an important fact to know.

The couple of hours' work I am here suggesting for you will only add up

to 1/1000th of the time I've spent doing similar underlining in the BoM and

the one surviving Spalding text. I took the two books with me when I lived

in Nepal, and each evening before I went to bed, I worked on the look-ups

for a couple of hours, for many months. I've already placed the marked-up BoM

pages on the web. I can do the same for Spalding, -- that is, if you're really

interested in seeing those graphics.

I may never get my answer -- to the question of how much basic overlap

we can reasonably expect between the BoM and any other unrelated, but vaugely

similar old book. But I'll keep plodding along, learning what I can as I go.

Uncle Dale

[Warship]

Hello Ck,

I explained my feelings about biblical influence in my last post to Dale. Biblical influence while perhaps explaining some of the correlations it will not explain all the etrabiblical correlations.

As for G, you wrote, "G. is also interesting in that the terms black and white are used with the same symbolic meaning." That's great, except that I don't think that the phrase in the Book of Mormon is used symbolically. A google search reveals that the exact phrase "black and white, bond and free" was used as early as 1851[/url, and became fairly popular in the 1860's. A Yahoo search pushes the date back further still, to 1846. A similar phrase, "black and white, slave and free" was known in 1830. Unfortunately, the selection of pre-1830 online books that are searchable is very limited. But I suspect that a further search would discover that use of this word-string predates the BoM.

Regardless of whether the word-string predates the BoM, or the BoM divinely anticipated the civil rights movement and the writings of Frederick Douglass by 16 years, the point is that this word-string was regularly used in the mid-1800's to refer to people of black skin and white skin. That, I suspect is precisely what it would have called to mind for 19th century readers of the BoM. And of course, it is precisely what it calls to mind for me even today. If we are not intended to read race into this passage, then why would God/Joseph Smith use language so precisely similar to the rhetoric of the Civil Rights movement? No, I think we are meant to read race here, and I think that by even suggesting otherwise, you undercut one the BoM's strongest statements in favor of racial equality.

I couldn't disagree with you more. I feel that critics such as yourself do us believers a disservice by suggesting any reference to skin color can be found in the BOM. And if you think this is one of the strongest statements of racial equality..than you don't know the bom.

Go here for a thread I wrote explaining that the black skins are girdle garments..the same that can be found in the bible.

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=17057&hl=

If you can answer my central question, which no one who advocates the theory you are advocating here has been able to answer, with a strong reasonable answer than perhaps I'll take your suggestion of my defamation more seriously.

I don't want to go into the many statements made in the bom that demonstrate the equality of men but I will give you a couple..

1nephi17

[35] Behold, the Lord esteemeth all flesh in one; he that is righteous is favored of God.

Mosiah 23

[7] ... thus saith the Lord: Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another

I could write a list of dozens for you.

From what I have heard of the Maya, gold and even silver were not particularly precious to them. Copper is a more likely referent, IMHO.

You should see my freference to PV IV ch. 3 and its use of "precious metals". Ornaments and crowns were made of gold and not copper as far as I know. The popol vuh mentions gold and silver but not copper at all to my knowledge. In fact gold and silver are the only metals mentioned the popol vuh as far as I can tell which leads me to believe that they would have to be the "precious metals" the author is referring to.