7 "evidences" I Find Compelling

[consiglieri]

I guess I see it the other way. The Book of Mormon looks almost exactly like you would expect a 19th-century work to look. It incorporates common folk mythology, resolves the theological questions of the day, and adds anachronisms to the mix. Yes, there are interesting parallels and a few possible direct hits. But, I don't see anything that suggests that the antiquity of the book is the only remaining possibility.

Of course, we could go back and forth on this and never get a resolution. I honestly have no idea what turned the tide for me, but I've reached different conclusions than you have.

As with Soren, I am happy to allow you the liberty of viewing the evidence in your own way and coming to your own conclusions.

There's only you and me and we just disagree.

And I am once more grateful to CK for beginning this thread by acknowledging 7 evidences about the Book of Mormon that he finds "compelling."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[soren]

I appreciate your comments, Soren, but obviously you are opening up a BIG can of worms that is far too large and wriggly for this thread (or any one thread!).

I am just telling you how I view the evidence. I am happy to extend to you the liberty of viewing it differently.

For example, I see a difference between John F. Kennedy's speech, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," admittedly chiastic; and the entirety of Alma chapter 36.

I am also not persuaded that Joseph Smith is copying Hamlet in the Book of Mormon; it is a common enough expression; and we find it replicated in the Book of Job, to which both Shakespeare and Lehi had access. (Although I am having a tougher time accounting for the Queen Mab speech in the Book of Helaman.)

These are good examples of how meager, in my view, are the attempts to explain away the Book of Mormon's manifest connections with the ancient Near East, and hence do not detract substantially from the wealth of evidence amassed in favor of Book of Mormon authenticity.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

How you view the evidence is not my question, but the certainty of your conclusion as a scholarly conclusion. I have raised examples here, not for the purpose of refuting the Book of Mormon, but illustrate applied principles. Let's take the thing about Hamlet and Job. I was already aware of this explanation and do not find it unreasonable as a hypothesis. But is the existence of this alternate hypothesis sufficient to silence the Hamlet theory? If we do not presuppose that the Book of Mormon is both ancient and true, what objectice criteria could be used to rule out Hamlet? The fact that it could be explained by other sources is not sufficient. Suppose I were a professor of liguistics doing BOM research and I had a file on the verse in 2 Nephi that included a copy of "To be or not to be." Suddenly my assistance comes into the room with a copy of an old Hebrew document with a similar phrase. What then do I do? Do I take the copy of Hamlet and throw it away and put the new document in my file? No. For I must have some criterion to exclude Hamlet, and the mere existence of another possible source is no such criterion. So I put them them both together into the same file and I don't remove either until I find an objective basis to exclude it.

What then would happen if I did that with all of my evidence? What if I kept a file on every part of the BOM in which I put in every modern or ancient source inclusively, without ruling out modern sources whenever I found a similar ancient one or vice versa unless I could justify doing so on another basis? What would my file drawer end up looking look like if I applied that standard? Would I end up with a file drawer filled with ancient documents and a paltry number of modern ones? Given that the KJV is a modern source relative to Smith, and that potential influences like A View of the Hebrews would be included... If I then arbitrarily excluded all the ancient data that had a matching modern source, would I not have in my possession plenty of evidence to justify 19th Century authorship?

There is also a problem with your claim that accepted methods of dating documents prove the antiquity of the text. As an English translation of a lost language, I would say The Book of Mormon is inherently impervious to any such examination. The first principle of literary study, whether in hermeneutics or history is language: Vocabulary and Grammer. The next principle is structure. As far as vocabulary and grammar, the only thing we have is English and that is a modern language. Reformed Egyptian is unknown and therefore all linguistic connections to antiquity have to speculative. We aren't in as a bad a situation in terms of structure, but we are still in dire straits. For example, what if we find a chiastic structure in the BOM? By what objective standard can we suppose that the chiasmus is also in the original? Does Reformed Egyptian use the same word order as English? If it does not, the chiasmus may be a product of the translation converting the word order to a form that suits the present language. Consider the Kennedy chiasmus you mentioned. Here is my translatin of the same sentece into Latin:

Non roga quid facere potest tibi patria tua

Roga quid facere potes te patria tua

You will note that there is no chiasmus here. That is because in Latin, the subject and object of a verb are not indicated by a change in word order, but by case ending. This is very clear Latin, yet the literary device in use is not chiasmus, which would be awkward but parallelism, a parallelism not translatable into English, since our word order would demand a shift into a chiastic structure. How do we know that English and Reformed Egyptian do not relate to each other in the same way?

Also, how do we know that the two parallel words or phrases translate the same Reformed Egyptian word, or if there are not two Egyptian words rendered by the same word in English? Unless we know the original language, our answers can only be speculative, and this problem is on a ground-floor level, tied to the first principle of the whole discipline.

[consiglieri]

I find the Book of Mormon text less than impervious to such commonly used scholarly methods. I think that obviating the usefulness of common textual comparisons solely on the basis that the Book of Mormon exists in an English translation may be overstating things somewhat. For example, stating that the fact the Book of Mormon exists only as a purported translation in English somehow completely does away with any and all evidentiary value relating to the complex and intricate multiple chiastic structures identified therein approaches hyperbole.

As to Hamlet, I think I understand what you are saying. And yes, we would expect Joseph Smith, if he were aware of Hamlet at all, to be more likely to be aware of the "To be or not to be" first line of Hamlet's third soliloquy rather than a relatively unknown line halfway through that lengthy speech, which is actually what we find Lehi stating in the Book of Mormon. Additionally, if we grant Joseph Smith such a thorough knowledge of Shakespeare, we might wonder why he doesn't actually quote the line, but rather merely says something like it. Which is what Job does, as well.

I also agree with you that at least some, perhaps "plenty," of evidence supports a theory of 19th century origin. The question becomes what are we to make of the great (and I think greater) degree of competing evidence that indicates an ancient origin? I think that is really the question, and where certainly reasonable minds can differ.

I tend to think that it makes more sense for an authentically ancient record, translated by one living in the early 19th century, to have both evidence of 19th century origin as well as numerous markers signifying ancient authorship. On the other hand, with the same evidence, it makes less sense to me for the Book of Mormon to be a product solely of the 19th century. That accounts for only those indicators of 19th century production, but does nothing to address the panoply of indicators of ancient authorship.

For myself, and based on the evidence with which I am aware, the evidentiary scales tip significantly in favor of the proposition that the Book of Mormon is ancient, and hence authentic.

And new evidence keeps coming to light every day, it seems, as witnessed by the recent thread of a city in pre-conquest Mesoamerica identified as "Bountiful."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Stargazer]

If the good doctor will forgive me, it is because many scholars divide up Isaiah into different sections, only the first of which was actually written by Isaiah, or another person living at the time of Isaiah.

And this reminded me of an old joke story in which a professor is described as having spent his the bulk of his professional career attempting to prove that the Iliad and the Oddysey were written, not by Homer, but by another Greek of the same name.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The chiasmus argument for the Book of Mormon is too outdated. Come on, Joseph Smith clearly snagged the idea from Mother Goose:

...Hickory ****ory Dock

.............The Mouse ran up the clock

.............The clock struck one and down it came

...Hickory ****ory Dock

[Obiwan]

By the way....

An excellent starter book, though not perfect, and far from complete is: http://www.1000evidences.com

1000 Evidences

[California]

Second Isaiah in the BoM text is one for me.

If Joseph knew the scriptures, which he did, wouldn't opening up the Bible to a familiar verse curtail the effort that he would need to put into having to just receive the chapter by revelation rather than seeing where Nephi was going and continueing using something easier to receive?

[soren]

Before answering, let me quickly remind myself and anyone reading that I make no claim to disprove the authorship of the BOM. I have theories about it that I am willing to defend, but I know the difference between theory and proof. What I do oppose is the notion that the antiquity of the BOM is verified by scholarly procedures.

I find the Book of Mormon text less than impervious to such commonly used scholarly methods. I think that obviating the usefulness of common textual comparisons solely on the basis that the Book of Mormon exists in an English translation may be overstating things somewhat. For example, stating that the fact the Book of Mormon exists only as a purported translation in English somehow completely does away with any and all evidentiary value relating to the complex and intricate multiple chiastic structures identified therein approaches hyperbole.

I wouldnâ??t claim it does away with any and all of the textâ??s evidentiary possibilities, whence I noted that structural evidences are less damaged by the language problem than those dependent on specific grammar and vocabulary. (That would save the larger chiastic structures, while throwing all the smaller ones into question.) Also the literal historical contents of the Book as well as untranslated words remain usable. Yet even so it does pose a serious hermeneutical problem that studies in BOM antiquity need to interact with to make a genuinely scholarly case: To what extent does the possibility of linguistic differences of the modern BOM and the ancient BOM affect the certainty of our premises and therefore our conclusions? And they need to engage it any every point, from the beginning. Yet I hardly see LDS scholars even talking about it. Do we see them publishing articles about the hermeneutical problems that underlie their critical methods in relating the English text to ancient languages? This should be fundamental. (And by the way, if I am wrong, and you know where they have published such thing, let me know and Iâ??ll totally check it out.)

My real point is that it is impossible by textual criticism to place the English BOM in the ancient world for the simple reason that it is not an ancient document. As a translation, it is a modern work that represents the contents of an ancient document, but that ancient document is the actual object of these studies. Yet we donâ??t even know its language. Comparing an English text to a Syriac one in order to draw a conclusion about a linguistic connection between the Syriac and the unknown Reformed Egyptian is not a â??commonly used scholarly method.â? It is very uncommon and it requires its own set of well-articulated principles if it is to be practiced as a discipline. What philosophical implications does it have? How do these implications relate to the discipline of the scholar? How do they affect the nature of evidence? Scholars who love their own disciplines also love to engage questions like this, even when they challenges their views. Half the fun of research is examining oneâ??s presuppositions. Taking up epistemological questions and integrating them into our thinking is a way to expand the power of research itself. If you donâ??t engage these questions, your science wonâ??t grow. In fact, it wonâ??t even start.

And new evidence keeps coming to light every day, it seems, as witnessed by the recent thread of a city in pre-conquest Mesoamerica identified as "Bountiful."

This is an excellent example of what I am talking about. Even to view this as evidence requires a hermeneutical assumption that must be justified before any conclusion can be supported. â??Bountiful,â? in the BOM, is an interpretation of a Reformed Egyptian word, and we have already seen that Reformed Egyptian vocabulary is unknown. Since this impedes us from being able to draw conclusions based on points of vocabulary, we can make no claims about anitiquity based on the modern word â??Bountiful.â? Assuming that â??Bountifulâ? it is a great translation of whatever ancient word underlies the modern text, can we really draw any conclusions? Do we know that Ref. Egyptian has a word in it composed of the noun â??bountyâ? and the suffix â??-fulâ?? Do we know if the translator choose â??Bountifulâ? for literal accuracy or if he stretched a little for poetic device? How about the name of this Mesoamerican place? Is â??Bountifulâ? the best or only English word to translate it? Does the Mesoamerican word have a cognate in Reformed Egyptian? The difficulty here is that evidence, if it is really evidence, has to be a correspondence of multiple concrete data, but we only have one piece of concrete data: a Mesoamerican word. The other piece that we want it to correspond to, the Reformed Egyptian word, is not known concretely, but abstractly, by inference from modern language alone. Yet a document in a modern language cannot be placed in antiquity.

Since our modern Book of Mormon claims two acts of authorship - the ancient composition and the modern translation - we must be able to separate the two acts to determine to what extent the features of the textâ??s vocabulary originate in the ancient language or in the modern one. Because verbal equivalence in languages is not a given, this is a real problem even for an inspired translation.

As to Hamlet, I think I understand what you are saying. And yes, we would expect Joseph Smith, if he were aware of Hamlet at all, to be more likely to be aware of the "To be or not to be" first line of Hamlet's third soliloquy rather than a relatively unknown line halfway through that lengthy speech, which is actually what we find Lehi stating in the Book of Mormon. Additionally, if we grant Joseph Smith such a thorough knowledge of Shakespeare, we might wonder why he doesn't actually quote the line, but rather merely says something like it. Which is what Job does, as well.

Do you think this argument represents objective standards? Could you justify a supposition that Smith was less likely to quote anything from Shakespeare except famous lines? Would you be able to apply that rule consistently to other literary studies? Itâ??s an illogical premise entirely. For if Smith were to quote Shakespeare in error, we should expect him to quote a less famous line that would not be a dead giveaway. Only a fool would put in "To be or not to be" and expect to get away with it. Hamlet was written only 15 years before the KJV, and Shakespeareâ??s English is of the same type. Thus, mistaking a Shakespeare quote for a Bible one is a likely error, especially with a line, like this one, which is famous enough for Smith to have heard it, but not famous enough for everyone to recognize it at once as Shakespeare. If Smith had been a Shakespeare scholar, as you seem to think I assume, that would actually make the error less likely, for a Shakespeare scholar would know to avoid the blunder. I, for instance, spotted that line in 2 Nephi the first time I read it. Were I to attempt to fabricate an ancient writing, my knowledge would prevent me from making that particular mistake, though I might commit different ones. This is a blunder we should expect from someone who knew a little Shakespeare, but not a lot.

As for the matter of Job, the case for Shakespeare is much better. The one thing that recommends Job over Hamlet is the common context of a man anticipating his own death in the first person. This is a good in itself, but the argument whithers due to the absence of the word â??travelerâ? in Job â?? the very word that really makes the phrase distinct. Let us compare the relevant passages:

Job 10:20-22 Are not my days few? cease then, and let me alone, that I may take comfort a little, before I go whence I shall not return, even to the land of darkness and the shadow of death; A land of darkness, as darkness itself; and of the shadow of death, without any order, and where the light is as darkness.

Hamlet III.i.: Who would fardels bear â?¦

â?¦ But that the dread of something after death,

The undiscovered country from whose bourne

No traveler returns, puzzles the will

And make us rather bear those ills we have

Than fly to others that we know not of.

2 Nephi 1:14 Awake! and arise from the dust, and hear the words of a trembling parent, whose limbs ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return; a few more days and I go the way of all the earth.

I listed the sources in the order they are in to illustrate something I find significant. Though I do not believe that BOM is quoting Job, I do believe that Hamlet is. I donâ??t know how well you know the Bard, but a subtle little secret about â??Hamletâ? is that it contains a profound relationship to the Book of Job, and there are several important intersections of plot, theme, and language. One of the easier parallels to see is that Hamlet curses his birth in the last lines of Act I just as Job does in Chapter 3 (and even for similar reasons, though it would take a long explanation to show why). In fact, moments after â??To be or not to beâ? Hamlet tells Ophelia, â??It were better my mother had not born me,â? while only two verses before Job 10:20 we find, â??Wherefore hast thou brought me out of the womb? Oh that I had perished, and that none eyes had seen me!â? (BTW: Shakespeare used the 1560 Geneva Bible, which has no relevant differences from the KJV in these verses.)

In light of this, the link between BOM and Job seems far less remarkable than the link to Shakespeare. How likely could it be that both â??Hamletâ? and BOM lift a phrase from Job and then add the very same unlikely word to it?

I also agree with you that at least some, perhaps "plenty," of evidence supports a theory of 19th century origin. The question becomes what are we to make of the great (and I think greater) degree of competing evidence that indicates an ancient origin? I think that is really the question, and where certainly reasonable minds can differ.

I tend to think that it makes more sense for an authentically ancient record, translated by one living in the early 19th century, to have both evidence of 19th century origin as well as numerous markers signifying ancient authorship. On the other hand, with the same evidence, it makes less sense to me for the Book of Mormon to be a product solely of the 19th century. That accounts for only those indicators of 19th century production, but does nothing to address the panoply of indicators of ancient authorship.

For myself, and based on the evidence with which I am aware, the evidentiary scales tip significantly in favor of the proposition that the Book of Mormon is ancient, and hence authentic.

I think a very big difference exists in the way you and I think about evidence. Your arguments are largely directed to the topic of quantity: See how much evidence there is! That is relevant, but it cannot impress me without prior consideration of qualitative standards, upon which your panoply of indicators must depend. Large amounts of evidence can always be amassed if one uses low standards in collecting it. Now, I know there are better evidences than that "Bountiful" thing, but if you find "Bountiful" impressive while at the same time dismissing Hamlet for very slight reasons, I wonder if the preponderance of favorable evidence that you see really reflects what evidence is really there, or if it is not in fact the result of the inconsistent standards whereby you appraise the evidence presented to you.

[consiglieri]

Dear Soren,

I appreciate all the time you have taken to post such lengthy and thoughtful replies.

It is clear that you and I evaluate the evidence differently. Contrary to your assertion, I do not see myself interested solely in quantity of evidence, but feel I can sift through the quality of the evidence as well. Quality is what matters most; on that I think we can agree, even if we view differently what constitutes that quality.

Perhaps to get this thread more on track with the original post, I could ask you this question:

California Kid started this thread with 7 evidences for the Book of Mormon he personally found compelling.

Do you find those evidences compelling, as well?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[soren]

Dear Soren,

I appreciate all the time you have taken to post such lengthy and thoughtful replies.

It is clear that you and I evaluate the evidence differently.

Contrary to your assertion, I do not see myself interested solely in quantity of evidence, but feel I can sift through the quality of the evidence as well. Quality is what matters most; on that I think we can agree, even if we view differently what constitutes that quality.

I did not say â??solely.â? I said you arguments were â??largely directedâ? to quantity. I chose that phrase specifically to avoid implying â??solely.â?

As far as what constitutes quality in evidence, there is more than one set of standards that can be used. But certain things are mandatory. The first thing is that standards must be applied consistently. Thus arguments against BOM antiquity canâ??t be demanded to carry a higher burden of proof than evidences in favor. Second, genuine hermeneutical principles have to be employed at all times. Here are two principles that I think are fairly objective, which, among others, deserve consideration in every argument.

Immanence: A source must to be proximate to the author. Thus, Hamlet and Job both fit the bill, in that Lehi could have known Job and Smith had both Job and Hamlet.

Specificity: The link between the author and the source has to be intrinsic. For instance, chiasmus does not fall into this standard necessarily, because it is not specifically Hebrew. â??Mulek,â? on the other hand, passes this standard with ease while the Mesoamerican city of "Bountiful" flounders.

Perhaps to get this thread more on track with the original post, I could ask you this question:

California Kid started this thread with 7 evidences for the Book of Mormon he personally found compelling.

Do you find those evidences compelling, as well?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

In the absence of other evidence, yes. I think Mulek and Nahom are the best, the others only supportive. The BOM witnesses are favorable, but they do not outweigh the Biblical testimony that authority to act in Godâ??s name would reside in the Church continually until the end of time. That single divine witness outweighs the claims of any number of men. The rapid dictation of the BOM is impressive, but I would be more impressed if the book were better written. I admit to subjectivity in that statement, as it comes from my own literary judgment, but I confess Iâ??ve never been impressed by the text. I actually think it is very derivative. I can read Johnâ??s Gospel in Greek, and I see nothing in the BOM half so beautiful or profound.

The â??ifâ?¦andâ? conditionals are a new one for me, so I havenâ??t had time to look further into it. On face it looks strong, but again the Reformed Egyptian hermeneutical problem must weigh in.

My favorite argument for the BOM is the apparent blunder in which the BOM places Christâ??s birth â??at Jersualem.â? This of course is not really an error in terms of archaic usage (the unknowability of Reformed Egyptian notwithstanding). It seems unlikely that Smith would have made this mistake, since it is so obvious. That it happens to fit into ancient ways of speaking contra the way we would expect Smith to concoct it, it lends probability to the Mormon case.

I should reiterate: I don't think it's incumbent on you ar anyone to prove the BOM by research. Faith-propositions get the benefit of the doubt, but it is important to acknowledge where the doubt lies in order to define where faith begins.

[consiglieri]

Wow! I thought this thread had gone the way of the do-do!

Having read your most recent post, I think nobody can fault you for not trying to evaluate the evidence with an open mind. That is impressive.

The only slight niggle I felt while reading your well-written and thoughtful post was the following:

The BOM witnesses are favorable, but they do not outweigh the Biblical testimony that authority to act in Godâ??s name would reside in the Church continually until the end of time. That single divine witness outweighs the claims of any number of men.

From this, it sounds like you are saying that even if the entire world claimed to have seen what the BOM witnesses claimed to have seen, your interpretation of Matthew 16:15-19 would govern.

As I say, that is only a small criticism in an overwhelmingly wonderful post.

And I do not know but that if I had not received a spiritual witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon when I was 18, I myself might not be persuaded by the secondary evidence we are discussing, but would be more prone to view it as you yourself do.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Kevin Christensen]

Unmentioned so far in the discussion of Lehi and Hamlet is by far the most important study ever done on the topic, a FARMS Preliminary Report by Robert F. Smith "Lehi and Shakespeare", which is, alas not on line. Smith extended what Nibley started in Lehi and the Desert, not just bringing up the "land of no return" phrases from Job (there is more in Jeremiah, which are less often noticed), but with views of the afterlife at Lehi's time. Nibley had cited a study of the such ANE practices titled "The Land of No Return." Rather than yanking a couple of lines from Lehi and Shakespeare, Smith goes through Lehi's discourse line by line and compared to the ancient context, and finds the whole discourse fits coherently into the background it claims for itself. Job is a convenient source, but limiting one's comparisons is far too limiting.

As method, I find Robert Smith's comprehensive approach far more persuasive and fair than narrowly focused cherry picking.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[LifeOnaPlate]

Don't forget we have a myriad of plagiarisms in the Bible canon itself, but we were unaware of them until the resurgence of interest in the Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Here we have instances of Jesus quoting pagan philosophers, Biblical texts not found in the Bible (many many many from the Book of Enoch, incidentally, which we also find a great deal of in the Book of Mormon itself.) One is constrained to admit, if one is intellectually honest, if the BoM is ripped off, so too the Bible indeed is ripped off! Christ Himself ripping people off, what is this? This is a strange reliance by the prophets on the former prophets. The angels who come along spend a lot of time quoting scripture, it's the strangest thing you've ever seen. Christ comes back after the resurrection and what does he do? Spends a lot of time going over the old records. What a waste! Or maybe there is reason for repeating the prophecies of old, and even the concepts of old. Paul certainly must have thought so, for all the unoriginal things he came up with.

In short, critics of the BoM fall into few categories:

When the Book of Mormon repeats anything, Joseph Smith simply lifted it.

When the Book of Mormon says something new it is unbiblical, or a product of Smith's amazing imagination, it adds to the Bible, and therefore is anathema.

[Luigi]

In light of Juliann's latest driveby (this is starting to look the streets of LA, people!), I thought I would point out that "countermopologists" are not completely oblivious to possible evidences for the truth of the Restored gospel. While I see many more evidences that it isn't, here are seven that I don't have good answers for. (With emphasis on "good". I have answers, just not answers that I think are really satisfying.)

1) "If...and" conditionals in the BoM

2) The three and the 8 witnesses, as well as the great crowd of witnesses to various other miraculous events in early Mormonism

3) The rapid dictation of an extraordinarily complex Book of Mormon, apparently without notes

4) The Edwards and Edwards argument for the intentionality of Book of Mormon chiasmus

5) Mulek, son of Zedekiah

6) Nahom

7) The "land of Jerusalem"

Has anyone said warm fuzzies yet? Cause that should definitely be in the top ten (sorry I just couldn't resist).

No but seriously I would say your list is pretty close to mine. As far as number 3 is concerned isn't there some accounts of the translation sometimes happening behind a curtain of some kind? I thought that it wasn't exclusively done with the seer stone in a hat. I would put the Nahom-Bountiful thing at the top. I recently read an interesting approach to the chiasmus thing that kind of depreciated the value of that evidence for me. I've yet to read a good rebuttal on the "If and" hebraism since it seems fairly awkward in English-but I think that it could certainly happen a few times on accident-especially with dictation. I'm not sure what you are referring to on 'great crowd of witnesses to various other miraculous events in early Mormonism". If you could please explain.

[Chris Smith]

Has anyone said warm fuzzies yet? Cause that should definitely be in the top ten (sorry I just couldn't resist).

No but seriously I would say your list is pretty close to mine. As far as number 3 is concerned isn't there some accounts of the translation sometimes happening behind a curtain of some kind? I thought that it wasn't exclusively done with the seer stone in a hat. I would put the Nahom-Bountiful thing at the top. I recently read an interesting approach to the chiasmus thing that kind of depreciated the value of that evidence for me. I've yet to read a good rebuttal on the "If and" hebraism since it seems fairly awkward in English-but I think that it could certainly happen a few times on accident-especially with dictation. I'm not sure what you are referring to on 'great crowd of witnesses to various other miraculous events in early Mormonism". If you could please explain.

The curtain was only used during the initial efforts: especially the 116 pages. Once Cowdery came on as scribe, it doesn't seem to have been used anymore.

There are all kinds of people who reported miraculous experiences, including at least one hostile Christian minister who saw some woman lift her crippled arm. Then there's Sidney Rigdon who shared with Joseph "the vision", there's the would-be plural wife who saw a vision in the middle of the night and then Joseph showed up at her door, etc. etc.

I didn't get the warm fuzzies when I prayed (or at the most I got contradictory warm fuzzies), so that's not on my personal list.

The evidences I listed are pretty much ordered according to how compelling I find them.

Best,

-Chris

[Chris Smith]

Don't forget we have a myriad of plagiarisms in the Bible canon itself, but we were unaware of them until the resurgence of interest in the Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Here we have instances of Jesus quoting pagan philosophers, Biblical texts not found in the Bible (many many many from the Book of Enoch, incidentally, which we also find a great deal of in the Book of Mormon itself.)

Did Jesus ever quote from texts that were written two thousand years later?

[Luigi]

The curtain was only used during the initial efforts: especially the 116 pages. Once Cowdery came on as scribe, it doesn't seem to have been used anymore.

There are all kinds of people who reported miraculous experiences, including at least one hostile Christian minister who saw some woman lift her crippled arm. Then there's Sidney Rigdon who shared with Joseph "the vision", there's the would-be plural wife who saw a vision in the middle of the night and then Joseph showed up at her door, etc. etc.

I didn't get the warm fuzzies when I prayed (or at the most I got contradictory warm fuzzies), so that's not on my personal list.

The evidences I listed are pretty much ordered according to how compelling I find them.

Best,

-Chris

I didn't know that about the curtain-interesting.

I got the idea from what you said that the miracles were ones seen by large groups of people, less of the reports of an individual here or there of something. I'm familiar with all but the last of the miracles you mentioned.

I was being facetious on the warm fuzzies thing but it was interesting to hear your story about praying.

Thanks,

Luigi

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

There are all kinds of people who reported miraculous experiences, including at least one hostile Christian minister who saw some woman lift her crippled arm.

[...]

For anyone curious about this event (although I'm not sure Ezra Booth was necessarily "hostile")...

From Philo Dibble's Autobiography:

I saw them as they passed my house on their way. She [Elsa Johnson] went to Joseph and requested him to heal her. Joseph asked her if she believed the Lord was able to make him an instrument in healing her arm. She said she believed the Lord was able to heal her arm.

Joseph put her off till the next morning, when he met her at Brother [Newel K.] Whitney's house. There were eight persons present, one a Methodist preacher, and one a doctor. Joseph took her [Elsa Johnson] by the hand, prayed in silence a moment, pronounced her arm whole, in the name of Jesus Christ, and turned and left the room.

The preacher asked her if her arm was whole, and she straightened it out and replied: "It is as good as the other." The question was then asked if it would remain whole. Joseph hearing this, answered and said: "It is as good as the other, and as liable to accident as the other."

The doctor who witnessed this miracle came to my house the next morning and related the circumstance to me. He attempted to account for it by his false philosophy, saying that Joseph took her by the hand, and seemed to be in prayer, and pronounced her arm whole in the name of Jesus Christ, which excited her and started perspiration, and that relaxed the cords of her arm. I subsequently rented my farm and devoted all my time to the interest of the Church, holding myself in readiness to take Joseph wherever he wished to go.

-----

This one is from Early History of the Disciples in the Western Reserve, Ohio, A. S. Hayden (Cincinnati: Chase & Hall, 1876) page 250, and is considered the "Campbellite account."

Ezra Booth, of Mantua, a Methodist preacher of much more than ordinary culture, and with strong natural abilities, in company with his wife, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, and some other citizens of this place, visited Smith at his house in Kirtland, in 1831. Mrs. Johnson had been afflicted for some time with a lame arm, and was not at the time of the visit able to lift her hand to her head. The party visited Smith, partly out of curiosity, and partly to see for themselves what there might be in the new doctrine.

During the interview the conversation turned upon the subject of supernatural gifts; such as were conferred in the days of the apostles. Some one said: "Here is Mrs. Johnson with a lame arm; has God given any power to men on the earth to cure her?" A few moments later, when the conversation had turned in another direction, Smith rose, and walking across the room, taking Mrs. Johnson by the hand, said in the most solemn and impressive manner: "Woman, in the name of Jesus Christ, I command thee to be whole;" and immediately left the room.

The company were awe-stricken at the infinite presumption of the man, and the calm assurance with which he spoke. The sudden mental and moral shockâ??I know not how better to explain the well attested factâ??electrified the rheumatic armâ??Mrs. Johnson at once lifted it up with ease, and on her return home the next day she was able to do her washing without difficulty or pain.

-----

This is from Women of Mormondom, Edward W. Tullidge (New York: author), 1877; on GospeLink 2001 CD-ROM (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company), 2000. Pages 403-404. It is an account given by Marinda Johnson Hyde:

In the winter of 1831, Ezra Booth, a Methodist minister, procured a copy of the Book of Mormon and brought it to my father's house. They sat up all night reading it, and were very much exercised [404] over it. As soon as they heard that Joseph Smith had arrived in Kirtland, Mr. Booth and wife and my father and mother went immediately to see him. They were convinced and baptized before they returned. They invited the prophet and Elder Rigdon to accompany them home, which they did, and preached several times to crowded congregations baptizing quite a number. I was baptized in April following.

-----

This is the Luke S. Johnson account (not sure if it's published in any books):

Soon after Joseph Smith moved from the state of New York, my father, mother and Ezra Booth, a Methodist Minister, went to Kirtland to investigate "Mormonism."

My mother had been laboring under an attack of chronic rheumatism in the shoulder, so that she could not raise her hand to her head for about two years; the prophet laid hands upon her, and she was healed immediately.

My father was satisfied in regard to the truth of "Mormonism," and was baptized by Joseph Smith, Jr., in the winter of 1830â??1, and furnished him and his family a home, while he translated a portion of the Bible.

[soren]

Wow! I thought this thread had gone the way of the do-do!

Oh, no. I've been enjoying this thread. I just got bogged down by midterms.

Having read your most recent post, I think nobody can fault you for not trying to evaluate the evidence with an open mind. That is impressive.

The only slight niggle I felt while reading your well-written and thoughtful post was the following:

From this, it sounds like you are saying that even if the entire world claimed to have seen what the BOM witnesses claimed to have seen, your interpretation of Matthew 16:15-19 would govern.

If I had to stand against the world, Matt. 16:15-19 would not be my battle-line. As it happens, I agree with Joseph Smith and the Fathers of the Catholic Church that the Rock in question is Peter's testimony, or "revelation" as D&C puts it. This is not to contradict the notion that the Rock is Peter, who gets the conspicuous name "Cephas" from Christ. I believe much of scripture is intentionally multivalent, and that the verses involve a convergence of three meanings which identify three Rocks: Christ himself, Peter's testimony, and Peter himself. These three rocks are treated as one by way of the union of Christ and the Church, which is his mystical body. Yet while that makes for nice theologizing on the Catholic end, the multivalence of the verse makes it poor as a proof-text, since I cannot prove this interpretation.

But there is a passage I would hold up against the opposition of all: Matt. 28:18-20. This passage is plain and objective. One of the first threads I ever started on this site was on those verses, and I got into two stiff debates, first with J Greene and then with PacMan. Others may judge, but I think my interpretation withstood a lot of heat, although PacMan succeeded in throwing legitimate question on the historicity of the papacy. Here's the thread:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=23258

Sorry 'bout the digression, but it does come to bear on my next answer.

As I say, that is only a small criticism in an overwhelmingly wonderful post.

And I do not know but that if I had not received a spiritual witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon when I was 18, I myself might not be persuaded by the secondary evidence we are discussing, but would be more prone to view it as you yourself do.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I have never asked for a witness of the Book of Mormon, because I don't consider it a reverent prayer - at least not for myself, not for someone who knows as much theology as I do. For people who do not know the things I know, it's allowable, but I could never do it conscientously.

I have a testimony of my own, but I recognize it as testimony in a very different way from a burning in the bosom or anything specific to emotional logic and experiential verification. Like love, my testimony provokes feelings, but it is not itself a feeling, and it requires no concomitant emotion. Just as love sometimes requires us to do things at odds with the way we feel, so too testimony often requires us to believe and obey things that don't please our emotions. In fact, it is a sign of a strong testimony when this happens. This is because (again like love) testimony is essentially a moral virtue, inherently selfless in all its genuine aspects, and therefore not measurable by any criterion centered on the desires of the individual self, including emotion. The clarity of one's conscience is a truer test, a much harder test, and it is there that I seek my testimony. That's the hardest place to look for it, but that's where it really is.

As a moral virtue, testimony is the virtue of hearing and speaking the Word of the Lord. This concept of testimony implies at once the virtue of obedience. In fact, in the NT, the Greek word for hearing, akoe, also means obedience. And obedience demands belief in all that God reveals. I am convinced that my view of Matt. 28:18-20 is so plainly correct, that to deny it is no different from simply disbelieving what is objectively there in the revealed text itself. This makes it impossible for be me reverently entertain a different notion. For to think otherwise would be to abandon my testimony.

This is a large part of why I don't concern myself too much with BOM historicity issues. What matters to me really are the contents of faith.

[Kevin Christensen]

FWIW, seven "evidences" which I see as offering me personally inviting "cause to believe" (Alma 32's apt expression),rather than knowledge coerced against my will.

1. My own testimony experience on my third reading of the Book of Mormon, in Ether 12, when I was 19.

2. Benjamin's speech. It's a marvelous speech, but on my mission an investigator had claimed that it was unrealistic for everyone to be converted, for everyone to make the covenant. People just don't act that way in real life. About a year later, a member loanded me Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon. In the chapter on "Old World Ritual in the New World," showing a 36 step ritual in which two of the requisite steps are everyone falls down, at the same time, and everyone makes the covenant. And it just keeps getting better, when it turns out that the ritual combines the Day of Atonement, Tabernacles, Sabbatical Year, and Jubilees (which were, it turns out, a single ritual in pre-Exilic Israel), plus, the lovely chiasms within, and the overall chiastic structure of the speech, that being woven into the chiastic structure of the chapter. It seems simple on first reading, but closer looks reveal increasing complexity reminscent of fractals.

3. Survivor witness in the Book of Mormon. Gordon Thomasson and Lisa Bolin Hawkins did a preliminary Report comparing the Book of Mormon to Survivor Witness patterns shown by certain survivors of genocidal holocausts under Hitler and Stalin. To date, I have never seen a critic mention the existence of this pattern, let alone account for it. Mormon and Moroni match precisely the psychological and behavioral profile of authentic survivor-witnesses. It is difficult to explain how Joseph, or anyone else could have come up with it. It is easy to see why it is the kind of thing that critical approaches never uncover, and never bother to notice after it has been uncovered. Far easier to sneer about tapirs, offer the vague parallels to the Mound Builder myth, Burnt Over District revivals, to stand behind the B.H. Roberts study, and imply that the thinking has been done.

4. NDE research corrolations. Not only does Alma's conversion match contemporary NDE research, down to the elaborate after-effects (the attitudes expressed in Alma 29 are just one perfectly nuanced example), but Nephi's and Lehi's accounts match the patterns in Medieval literatures. My JBMS 2/1 article elaborates.

5. Lehi's journey as a set of complex corrolations, both geographic and cultural.

6. The Mesoamerican corrolations shown by Sorenson, Brant Gardner, Diane Wirth, Allen Christenson, Larry Paulson's identification of the Grijalva as the only river in the Western Hemiphere that fits the Book of Mormon description fo the Sidon, and that placing the Book of Mormon text in that setting illuminates the text (particularly Brant's essays on the topic), rather then destroys it. Even Michael Coe's critical comments, I find remarkably uncritical and off the mark, not offering any troubling substance at all.

7. First Temple Judaism and the Book of Mormon. No LDS scholar saw Margaret Barker's approach coming. She knew nothing about the LDS or Book of Mormon. Yet the pictures, created by utterly different methods, sources, and perspectives, mesh astonishingly well, not only in terms of the time and place, but in a prophesy in 1 Nephi 13:39-42 that seems to me to predict Barker's sources, findings, and conclusions. One of the most potent shocks for me was in reading Barker's chapter on Second Isaiah in the Older Testament. She argued that in Isaiah 40-47, the second Isaiah declares that Yahweh was El, and launched a whole new understanding of God in the Exilic community. And none of those chapters or arguments or conclusions appeared in the Book of Mormon. To me, suddenly the Second Isaiah seemed as much a boon to the Book of Mormon as a problem. Later Barker wrote a paper arguing that Isaiah 53 was inspired by Hezekiah's bout with the Plague, and serendipitously, unintentionally, makes it available to Nephi. I found this, and a host of other "problematic" passages beautifully resolved in the new paradigm.

And not officially an evidence, but a pattern in my own experience. My patience with questions is inevitably rewarded in ways that I could not have forseen, and that I am thankful I did not miss.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[consiglieri]

Wow! What a great post, Kevin.

Thank you for your insights, and also for bringing the work of Margaret Barker to my attention a few years back.

Is it true she is scheduled for baptism Saturday?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Kevin Christensen]

You are welcome.

I'm thankful to the guys in the RBBM who quoted from The Great Angel. Otherwise, I'd have had to wait for Noel Reynolds to do what I did. I'm always amazed that someone else didn't do it first.

I haven't heard any such rumors about baptism, but she at the SBL Meeting in San Diego in Early November, she is doing another LDS related paper. About Melchizedek. It should be interesting.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[consiglieri]

You are welcome.

I'm thankful to the guys in the RBBM who quoted from The Great Angel. Otherwise, I'd have had to wait for Noel Reynolds to do what I did. I'm always amazed that someone else didn't do it first.

I haven't heard any such rumors about baptism, but she at the SBL Meeting in San Diego in Early November, she is doing another LDS related paper. About Melchizedek. It should be interesting.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Your humility does you credit.

"What is the SBL?" Consiglieri asked ignorantly. "The Southern Baptist League? Doesn't seem likely, as your typical Baptist probably wouldn't be too interested in what Ms. Barker has to say."

And I was just kidding about the baptism thing.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Kevin Christensen]

SBL is the Society of Biblical Literature. It's a big deal, the annual Meeting in San Diego this year is the largest gathering of Biblical Scholars in this world. In that forum, she is speaking on this topic:

Melchizedek, Priest of God Most High

Program Unit: Latter-day Saints and the Bible

Margaret Barker, Cambridge University

The figure of Melchizedek in Genesis 14 has taken a wide variety of variant forms in Jewish and Christian literatures. His many connections with the temple, kingship, priesthood, peace, and other functions will be examined as background to the understanding of Melchizedek in the Latter-day Saint tradition.

http://www.sbl-site.org/congresses/Congres...spx?MeetingId=7

It should be interesting. Though I can't go.

Kevin Christense

Pittsburgh, PA

[MormonMason]

Years ago, our Gospel Doctrine teacher was Alan Goff, whom many here might know. He spent some time on that issue, and he basically said it was problematic. The Book of Mormon's rather obvious textual dependency on the KJV is I think a big problem, but that would be a different thread.

I don't see it that way, however. There is much in the way of evidence for an overall unity in the Book of Isaiah. However, I also cannot just ignore the differences in vocabulary and style in many of the passages of what is often called Second Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah.

I have come to my own conclusion--a sort of middle ground position--and that is that the latter half of the Book of Isaiah has been tampered with and substantial amounts of text interpolated into the book. For instance, chapters 41-46 seem to change substantially to the style that would be expected from a lawyer trying to be a poet rather than from one skilled with poetry, as do variably-sized portions of several other chapters in the latter half of the book. Where some of the most radical differences occur the texts do not show up in the Book of Mormon. The portions that have the very least amount of such apparent interpolation or none at all, they appear in the Book of Mormon in variously sized portions.

Of course, that work was all preliminary and I have temporarily laid it aside for the time being, I found that of interest. Of course, since my recent relocation, much still is packed away in boxes so finding it to take it up again might be a bit of a problem for the moment.