Bom Bull'sâ??eyes

[Matt Amos]

The particular term shows up in the DSS and was basically unkown befor that.

How do we know that land of Jerusalem was unknown before the DSS?

[Zakuska]

How do we know that land of Jerusalem was unknown before the DSS?

It was unkown to the Critics... they are the ones who brought it up. Saying it was an error to refer to Jerusalem that way. Then we see the DSS refer to it that way... so it shows an ancient Precident for th BOM.

This is the opposite of a bull's eye when you look into it a little deeper.I've never understood why FARMS wrote an entire book on this. Yes, ancient people wrote on gold plates. Is it so implausible that JS either guessed or was aware of that? When cataloging "bull's eyes", I'd think we should focus on things that JS had a low likelihood of guessing or knowing about.

Ditto. it was the critics who laughed. No scritpures where ever written on metal. Everyone knows that. Is what they claimed.

[Chris Smith]

It was unkown to the Critics... they are the ones who brought it up. Saying it was an error to refer to Jerusalem that way. Then we see the DSS refer to it that way... so it shows an ancient Precident for th BOM.Ditto. it was the critics who laughed. No scritpures where ever written on metal. Everyone knows that. Is what they claimed.

Tvedtnes' book on the subject offers only one example of "the critics" laughing. And who does it cite? The Baptist parents of some Mormon woman in the Midwest who sent FARMS an email. And where did the parents get the idea that writing on gold plates was absurd? From some 1886 anti-Mormon lectures by a Baptist named Thomas Lamb. Really, it's not necessary to devote entire books to refuting every stupid thing some idiot with a printing press decided to put on paper a hundred years ago.

[Matt Amos]

It was unkown to the Critics... they are the ones who brought it up. Saying it was an error to refer to Jerusalem that way. Then we see the DSS refer to it that way... so it shows an ancient Precident for th BOM.Ditto. it was the critics who laughed. No scritpures where ever written on metal. Everyone knows that. Is what they claimed.

Zak,

This goes back to my original observation: Land of Jerusalem? Would that really be considered a bull's-eye (i.e. something unknownable to Joseph Smith)? Isn't that more of a weak criticism by ill-informed anti's that has been shown to be invalid (similar to the invalid criticism of pre-Columbian cement)?

In other words, something should not be counted as a bull's-eye just because some poorly-read critic incorrectly raised it as an issue at some point in the past 178 years.

[Calm]

Tvedtnes' book on the subject offers only one example of "the critics" laughing. And who does it cite? The Baptist parents of some Mormon woman in the Midwest who sent FARMS an email. And where did the parents get the idea that writing on gold plates was absurd? From some 1886 anti-Mormon lectures by a Baptist named Thomas Lamb. Really, it's not necessary to devote entire books to refuting every stupid thing some idiot with a printing press decided to put on paper a hundred years ago.

I found the subject interesting in and of itself. That it serves to refute a criticism is simply a plus for me.

[Zakuska]

Really, it's not necessary to devote entire websites to refuting every stupid thing some idiot with a .com account decides to put on the internet a hundred hours ago.

When the stuff gets cycled and recycled... what else are we supposed to do?

[Anijen]

1) Three Witnesses

2) Chiasmus

3) Names in the BoM such as Pahoran etc

4) NHM

5) MesoAmerica

These are not in any particular order but if I were to place them the three witnesses would be right near the top and of course the all time number one reason even though anecdotal would be the confirmation I received and continue to receive by the Holy Ghost.

[helix]

In no particular order:

* The many intricate layers of King Benjamin's address.

* The chiasmus of Alma 36

* Old world geography, including place names, streams, oceans, ores, etc.

* It reads like a complex work, in that one editor gathered the material from various sources and put them in context of a consistent geography and time

frame.

* The practice of record keeping on metal plates.

[Nofear]

Not all are bull's eyes certainly, but an interesting list to browse: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms

[ed2276]

Especially when one is considering that when you write 500+ pages, you shoot a whole lot of arrows. I'm pretty sure if I'm given several thousand shots, I'll hit a few bull's eyes, even if I'm not aiming very well.

While others give their strongest reasons for BoM bull's-eyes you seem to give the weakest argument against BoM bull's-eyes.

[ed2276]

I've never understood why FARMS wrote an entire book on this. Yes, ancient people wrote on gold plates. Is it so implausible that JS either guessed or was aware of that? When cataloging "bull's eyes", I'd think we should focus on things that JS had a low likelihood of guessing or knowing about.

So, just another "shot an arrow in the air" reason why Joseph Smith got the records kept on metal and preserved in stone boxes right? Talk about weakness!

[ed2276]

Tvedtnes' book on the subject offers only one example of "the critics" laughing. And who does it cite? The Baptist parents of some Mormon woman in the Midwest who sent FARMS an email. And where did the parents get the idea that writing on gold plates was absurd? From some 1886 anti-Mormon lectures by a Baptist named Thomas Lamb. Really, it's not necessary to devote entire books to refuting every stupid thing some idiot with a printing press decided to put on paper a hundred years ago.

The point being that when Lamb made his statement Joseph's claim that writings were being made on metal plates in 600 B.C. was seen as proof that Joseph's claims were a fraud. And it was more than one " Baptist named Thomas Lamb" leveling that criticism.

"This book speaks... of the Jewish Scriptures, having been kept by Jews on plates of brass, six hundred years before Christ. The Jews never kept any of their records on plates of brass. The book of Mormon purports to have been originally engraved on brass plates.... How could brass be written on?" LaRoy Sunderland, Mormonism Exposed and Refuted (Piercy & Reed Printers, New York, 1838).

"It does not seem to have been pointed out to the youth [Joseph Smith] that gold will corrode if left in the earth for the number of years those plates were supposed to have been buried."

Stuart Martin, The Mystery of Mormonism (London: Odhams Press Lmtd., 1920).

So, it is not just a matter of refuting a stupid comment someone put on paper 100 years ago. It is a matter of pointing out that the statement was then used as a reason that the BoM could not possibly be authentic, as it was written on metal plates, which at the time , was considered a laughable proposition.

If the critics didn't know that records were kept on metal plates and stored in stone boxes in 1838 how could Joseph have known that they were? What was once laughable in 1838 or 1920 is no longer laughable, but Joseph Smith could not have known that it was not a rediculous claim to make in his day. Still, he made it...and time has borne him out to be correct.

You seem to acknowledge that point, but your only answer is that Joseph "guessed". Sorry, that is just as weak as the "he shot a lot of arrows into the air and one hit the bull's eye" argument.

[Chris Smith]

So, just another "shot an arrow in the air" reason why Joseph Smith got the records kept on metal and preserved in stone boxes right? Talk about weakness!

I'm quite willing to give JS credit where credit is due. But it's not due here, I'm afraid; at least not to any significant degree.

Thanks for the Sunderland quote. Lamb probably got his idea from Sunderland, at least indirectly. I don't imagine that two people could independently be dumb enough to say something like, "How could brass be written on?" As for Stuart Martin's quote, Martin should have known that gold doesn't corrode and that JS claimed it was in an airtight stone box, anyway.

It is a matter of pointing out that the statement was then used as a reason that the BoM could not possibly be authentic, as it was written on metal plates, which at the time , was considered a laughable proposition.

As far as I know, it was not considered laughable by anyone except those who were going out of their way to score points against Mormonism after-the-fact.

[Noggin]

I'm also impressed at how clearly the Book of Mormon fulfills Biblical prophecy (Isaiah 29).

but if one is writing, not translating-- the book of Mormon in the early 19th century... they could easily lace the text whichever way they needed to in order to look like they were fulfilling biblical prophecy. All they needed was to sit there with the "prophecies" of the bible open in their lap and answer each and every one as they saw fit.

That's a reasonable explanation as to how the book of Mormon so "clearly" fulfills...

You are easily impressed.

[Tribunal]

but if one is writing, not translating-- the book of Mormon in the early 19th century... they could easily lace the text whichever way they needed to in order to look like they were fulfilling biblical prophecy. All they needed was to sit there with the "prophecies" of the bible open in their lap and answer each and every one as they saw fit.

That's a reasonable explanation as to how the book of Mormon so "clearly" fulfills...

You are easily impressed.

Noggin, you believe Joseph Smith, or anyone, is capable of "writing" a book like the Book of Mormon in the time it took and still be able to articulate how to answer each and everyone of the Bible prophecies? That's some ability. For someone as uneducated as Joseph Smith I'm amazed at how well he comprehended the Bible and how skilled he was at writing.

[Matt Amos]

...It is a matter of pointing out that the statement was then used as a reason that the BoM could not possibly be authentic, as it was written on metal plates, which at the time , was considered a laughable proposition....

The assertion that this was a "laughable proposition" is based on an incomplete understanding of Joseph Smith's environment. This web page includes an interesting quote from 1812:

In 1812, Governor De Witt Clinton made the following comment about the early inhabitants of his

state. He said:

Previous to the occupancy of this region by the progenitors of the present race of Indians, it was inhabited by a race of men much more populous and more advanced in civilization. Who they were, whence they came and whither they went, have been themes of speculation by learned antiquarians, who have failed to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion. He further comments: Why have we no history of such a nation as must have inhabited this part of the world? Probably if a knowledge of these ancient people is ever obtained, it will be derived from inscriptions on stone or metals, which have withstood the rust of time.

This is why bull's-eye evidence that is based on assumptions about what was NOT in Joseph Smith's environment is problematic. Without the ability to proactively Google every publication (e.g. newspapers, magazines, pamphlets) from 1780 to 1830, it is very likely that somebody, somewhere will eventually find something that contradicts those assumptions.

[Glenn101]

Especially when one is considering that when you write 500+ pages, you shoot a whole lot of arrows. I'm pretty sure if I'm given several thousand shots, I'll hit a few bull's eyes, even if I'm not aiming very well.

You have my permission to try.

Glenn

[cdowis]

This is the opposite of a bull's eye when you look into it a little deeper.

I've never understood why FARMS wrote an entire book on this. Yes, ancient people wrote on gold plates. Is it so implausible that JS either guessed or was aware of that? When cataloging "bull's eyes", I'd think we should focus on things that JS had a low likelihood of guessing or knowing about.

1. Huh? JS knew that people wrote on gold plates? Could you give us a contemporary reference (prior to 1830). Or is this just a coincidence.

2. Sheum does not "impress" you. Just another coincidence?

We should change the thread title to "Five Most Interesting coincidences in the BOM."

[Zakuska]

re: 1) Matt just gave an 1812 example.

Heres a list of sources for the criticism:

1. See for example John Hyde, Jr., Mormonism: Its Leaders and Designs (New York: Fetridge, 1857), 217-18;

M.T. Lamb, The Golden Bible (New York: Ward and Drummond, 1887), 11;

Stuart Martin, The Mystery of Mormonism (London: Odhams Press, 1920), 27;

see William J. Hamblin, "Sacred Writing on Bronze Plates in the Ancient Mediterranean," available on the order form in this issue of INSIGHTS, for full references and analysis of the issues raised in this Update. [back up]

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSMetal.shtml

[maklelan]

re: 1) Matt just gave and 1812 example.

I think that's quite different. People have long known about large inscriptions on metal and stone stelae, but the idea of inscribing a lengthy text on small and thin metal plates is an entirely different story.

[Chris Smith]

1. Huh? JS knew that people wrote on gold plates?

I'm talking about probabilities.

2. Sheum does not "impress" you. Just another coincidence?

Exactly. For my take on Sheum, see posts 25 and 29 here.

[USU78]

I think this is implicit in Brandt's post, above:

The Mesoamerican setting for the incomplete attack on the Ammonites by the Lamanites, the former's pacifism making captives useless on religious grounds as human sacrifices (had to be warriors), and the latter's subsequent attack on another Nephite city to complete the attack by taking appropriate captives.

[Sargon]

I guess I'm less informed than I thought. Can you guys explain some of these to me?

1. Old World correlations: NHM, the Valley of Lemuel, the "river of water" and Bountiful (ore, harbor, etc.)

2. Chiasmus

3. Mulek (completely undervalued)

4. Metal Plates

5. Paanchi/Pahoran

6. Bountiful

7. Shuel... Modern day Xul

Why do these make the BoM bulls eye?

Sorry if someone can explain to some of us less informed.

Too many LDS rush into apologetic debates not being well equipped. These are basic concepts you should be aware of.

[Sargon]

I find Peterson's correlation of Nephi's dream to 1st temple practices to be stunning (as indicated above by K. Christensen), as well as various other similar correspondences.

I am surprised noone mentioned Petersons' recognition of guerilla war tactics in the Book of Mormon, and the familiarity with ancient near east olive culture in Jacob 5.

All of those are complex, yet hit the bulls-eye.

[Zakuska]

I find Peterson's correlation of Nephi's dream to 1st temple practices to be stunning (as indicated above by K. Christensen), as well as various other similar correspondences.

I am surprised noone mentioned Petersons' recognition of guerilla war tactics in the Book of Mormon, and the familiarity with ancient near east olive culture in Jacob 5.

All of those are complex, yet hit the bulls-eye.

Along with this... we should add Ma. Barkers remarks on said dream at the Joseph Smith Symposium.

The Tree of Life made one happy according to the Book of Proverbs, but for other detailed descriptions of the tree we have to rely on the non-canonical texts. Enoch described it as perfumed, with fruits like grapes. But a text discovered in Egypt in 1945 described the tree as beautiful, fiery, and with fruits like white grapes. I donâ??t know of any other source which describes the fruit as white grapes, so you can imagine my surprise when I read the account of Lehiâ??s vision of the tree whose white fruits made one happy; and the interpretation of the vision, that the virgin in Nazareth was the mother of the Son of God after the manner of the flesh.

http://www.joehunt.org/joseph-smith-margar...arker-talk.html