View Of The Hebrews Bull's-eyes

[Bennion Curio]

This will be easier for some than others, but I'm really interested in everyone's thoughts on something.

Close your eyes for a moment and picture a world in which the Book of Mormon's description of ancient american peoples and geography "fits" and is complimented by all existing knowledge of the old and new worlds during the time in which it took place.

Now, with the Book of Mormon as a real, accurate "account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang", that reality becomes the basis for comparison of old books which attempted to speculate and explain the ancient history of the americas in various ways, before the true account came out in 1830. Looking back, how close did some of those speculative works come to "reality"?

Specifically, I wonder how others have accounted for the bulls-eyes that Ethan Smith was able to publish in 1823, before the Book of Mormon provided the ancient americans' true and accurate record to the world. (Because I haven't been able to, personally)

How could Ethan Smith have known, 7 years before the truth was revealed, for example:

That they were Israelite in origin.

That they believed in a future gathering of Israel and restoration of the tribes.

That they migrated from the old world for religious purposes

That the migrants divided into civilized and uncivilized groups with long wars between them and the eventual destruction of the civilized by the uncivilized.

That the Christian gospel was preached in ancient America.

That there was a "lost book" with "yellow leaves" buried by the ancients.

That the book used extensive quotations from the prophecies of Isaiah

That the book gave a description of extensive military fortifications with military observatories or "watch towers" overlooking them

That the ancient peoples underwent change from monarchy to republican forms of government.

Was Ethan Smith a seer of some sort? Are these coincidences or lucky guesses. Just how do others process this information?

[Sargon]

Very provocative!

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

How could Ethan Smith have known, 7 years before the truth was revealed, for example:

That they were Israelite in origin.

He drew this conclusion from his (and others) extensive research into the customs and language of various Native American tribes and assumed that the convergences with Israelite language and traditions was evidence of common ancestry.

That they believed in a future gathering of Israel and restoration of the tribes.

Same as above (also, a common inference based on Isaiah prophecies).

That they migrated from the old world for religious purposes

What page is this on (preferably from the second edition)? I don't remember this, but it's been a long time since I read it and my memory sucks (kids, don't do drugs).

That the migrants divided into civilized and uncivilized groups with long wars between them and the eventual destruction of the civilized by the uncivilized.

Common inference based on observation.

That the Christian gospel was preached in ancient America.

What page is this on?

That there was a "lost book" with "yellow leaves" buried by the ancients.

I donâ??t recall the â??yellow leavesâ? part, but as for the â??lost book,â? he based this on the folk lore of a few tribes that had been recorded either by himself or others.

That the book used extensive quotations from the prophecies of Isaiah

I assume you mean the â??lost bookâ? had extensive quotations of Isaiah(?) What page is this on? I assume that this (if this is indeed stated) would also be taken from tribal lore that he had been made aware of.

That the book gave a description of extensive military fortifications with military observatories or "watch towers" overlooking them

Again, I assume that this is a reference to the contents of the â??lost bookâ?(?) What page is this on?

That the ancient peoples underwent change from monarchy to republican forms of government.

Page?

Was Ethan Smith a seer of some sort?

Perhaps, although he never claimed himself to be such. Instead, he claimed to be compiling his own research as well as a synopsis of several other individuals who had done research on the same topic in previous years (IIRC, he seemed to rely rather heavily on the research of two to three specific individuals).

Are these coincidences or lucky guesses.

I think it obvious that they are conclusions (right or wrong) that he drew from his research and the research of others.

Just how do others process this information?

Do you mean, how do most people regard E. Smith's research? By-in-large, not very highly.

[Uncertain]

This will be easier for some than others, but I'm really interested in everyone's thoughts on something.

Close your eyes for a moment and picture a world in which the Book of Mormon's description of ancient american peoples and geography "fits" and is complimented by all existing knowledge of the old and new worlds during the time in which it took place.

Now, with the Book of Mormon as a real, accurate "account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang", that reality becomes the basis for comparison of old books which attempted to speculate and explain the ancient history of the americas in various ways, before the true account came out in 1830. Looking back, how close did some of those speculative works come to "reality"?

Specifically, I wonder how others have accounted for the bulls-eyes that Ethan Smith was able to publish in 1823, before the Book of Mormon provided the ancient americans' true and accurate record to the world. (Because I haven't been able to, personally)

How could Ethan Smith have known, 7 years before the truth was revealed, for example:

That they were Israelite in origin.

That they believed in a future gathering of Israel and restoration of the tribes.

That they migrated from the old world for religious purposes

That the migrants divided into civilized and uncivilized groups with long wars between them and the eventual destruction of the civilized by the uncivilized.

That the Christian gospel was preached in ancient America.

That there was a "lost book" with "yellow leaves" buried by the ancients.

That the book used extensive quotations from the prophecies of Isaiah

That the book gave a description of extensive military fortifications with military observatories or "watch towers" overlooking them

That the ancient peoples underwent change from monarchy to republican forms of government.

Was Ethan Smith a seer of some sort? Are these coincidences or lucky guesses. Just how do others process this information?

Well, I am not a apologist. But my guess would be they would argue these sorts of parallels are to vague and could occur by coincidence. While parallels like Sheum and Pahoran are more complex and of a qualitatively different type and are unlikely to occur by chance.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Doctor Steuss]

That they migrated from the old world for religious purposes

What page is this on (preferably from the second edition)? I don't remember this, but it's been a long time since I read it and my memory sucks (kids, don't do drugs).

Now that I'm thinking about this more, didn't E. Smith believe they had left after the destruction of the second temple (at the hands of the Romans) in lieu of the initial exile? This would probably account for his belief that they had known of Christ's teachings.

[T-Shirt]

That there was a "lost book" with "yellow leaves" buried by the ancients.

Where did you get this? It is always wise to check your sources before you go on the prowl. What was found was a small box (phylactery), probably no more than a couple inches square. containing some parchment with Hebrew lettering. It was not a book, not even close

That the book used extensive quotations from the prophecies of Isaiah

The parchment had no quotes from Isaiah, it contained quotes from Deuteronomy and Exodus, commonly used in Jewish phylacteries. Not only were the quotes not from Isaiah but they were far from extensive, there was a total of 21 verses.

T-Shirt

[cinepro]

The full text of the book is here, so there shouldn't be a problem to actually cite the location for the claims in the OP.

[Kevin Christensen]

Bennion curio asks:

How could Ethan Smith have known, 7 years before the truth was revealed, for example:

That they were Israelite in origin.

That they believed in a future gathering of Israel and restoration of the tribes.

That they migrated from the old world for religious purposes

That the migrants divided into civilized and uncivilized groups with long wars between them and the eventual destruction of the civilized by the uncivilized.

That the Christian gospel was preached in ancient America.

That there was a "lost book" with "yellow leaves" buried by the ancients.

That the book used extensive quotations from the prophecies of Isaiah

That the book gave a description of extensive military fortifications with military observatories or "watch towers" overlooking them

That the ancient peoples underwent change from monarchy to republican forms of government.

Was Ethan Smith a seer of some sort? Are these coincidences or lucky guesses. Just how do others process this information?

How about Ethan Smith polled pop culture speculation that had been rampant for hundreds of years. And that those who preceded him in this speculation came from a culture immersed in the Bible, and interested in the prophecies of the gathering of Israel, and curious about the whereabouts of the Lost 10 tribes.

It is notable that none of the numerous speculators about indigenous origins postulated Jerusalem and 600 BCE. Since this turns out to be a crucial period for the formation of the Bible, this time frame is significant, not a trivial difference that makes no difference. (See my essay on the Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament" for example.) In the Book of Mormon, there are multiple migrations, including the non-Israelite Jaredites, and pre-existing "many nations" of unspecified origins necessary to enforce the covenant curses. It is worth mentioning that in the Book of Mormon, the Lost 10 Tribes are lost. And Ethan Smith has nothing to say about Jerusalem an 600 BCE.

Regarding Ethan Smith's alleged knowledge that the Christian gospel was preached, I noted this in FR 16:1:

Those American divines who approved of the Mound Builder myth's notion of a lost ten tribes origin for indigenous populations typically did not see remnants of Christianity among the natives. For example, View of the Hebrews reports an 1824 interview with an "old and venerable [Delaware] chief":

He was asked to state what he knew of Jesus Christ,177 the Son of God. He replied that "he knew but little about him. For his part, he knew there was one God. He did not know about two Gods." This evidence needs no comment to show that it appears to be Israelitish tradition, in relation to the one God, to heaven, hell, the devil, and to marriage, as taught in the Old Testament, as well as God's estimation of the proud, rich, and the poor. These things he assures us came down from their ancestors, before ever any white man appeared in America. But the great peculiarity which white men would naturally teach them (if they taught any thing,) that Jesus Christ the Son of God is the Saviour of the world, he honestly confesses he knew not this part of the subject.178

Vogel attempts to slip past the obstacle that pre-Christian knowledge in the Book of Mormon presents to the Mound Builder myth by relating some speculations about St. Thomas having taught the gospel in the New World. He also suggests that the Quetzalcoatl figure that Ethan Smith identified with Moses could become the Christ figure in 3 Nephi.179 However, the reason that Ethan Smith identified Quetzalcoatl with Moses was that identifying him with Christ was unthinkable, given the parameters of the Mound Builder myth.

Andrew Hedges review of the BYU Publication of the 1825 edition of View of the Hebrews has this to say on this topic:

http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/revi...um=1&id=247

The tradition in which Ethan Smith was writing was a long and venerable oneâ??as Richard Bushman has reminded us, English scholars were identifying the American aborigines with Jews as early as the sixteenth century.1 The idea reached American shores in the mid-1640s when John Eliot, the famous Puritan "Apostle to the Indians"; Daniel Gookin, the Massachusetts Bay Colony's Indian Superintendent; and other Puritan divines found the similarities between the Algonquin culture and ancient Israelite practices so compelling that they modified the then popular viewâ??which held that the Indians were gentile "Tartars" from Asiaâ??to suggest that, at the very least, the Indians were descendants of Hebrews who had made their way to America via a land bridge from Asia and were quite likely descendants of the lost tribes who had come the same route.2 Subsequent generations discussed and promoted the idea until 1775, when James Adair fully developed it in his History of the American Indians.3 Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews was just one of several books and pamphlets written on the topic in both England and America following the publication of Adair's book, all of which echoed the earlier Puritan contention that the Indians were unchurched descendants of the lost tribes who had come to America from Asia via a land bridge or, at most, "by canoes, or other craft" (p. 84) across the Bering Straits.4

A close reading of View of the Hebrews suggests that, while some aspects of this reconstruction could be debated, it is generally so complex as to be quite inflexible, based as it is on a relatively conservative reading of the biblical text and a number of suppositions so interdependent that if one should prove false, the whole model would collapse. Any modifications would have to be relatively small and insignificant, which explains why the basic outlines of the model remained virtually unchanged over the course of two centuries' worth of discussion. For example, churchmen over the centuries could (and did) debate how much of the Mosaic law the Indians as the lost tribes had retained after arriving in America. They could do this because such debates did not alter in the least the basic structure of the paradigm, which posited a pre-Christian migration of Israelites who had some knowledge of Old Testament practices. The churchmen did not, however, at any time debate the possibility that the Indians' ancestors knew of Christ's birth before the event, had engaged in such New Testament practices as baptism in Old Testament times, and had been visited by Christ after his resurrection. This was because the mere suggestion of these things would have done violence to their understanding of the Bible, contemporary evidence from Indian cultures themselves, and other parts of the model. For such a suggestion to be true in the context of early America's understanding of the Bible, for example, the Indians' ancestors would have to have been believing Christians who left the Old World after the time of Christ, since early American scholarship emphatically held that the ancient Israelites completely misunderstood their own messianic prophecies and that ordinances like baptism had not been practiced in Old Testament times.5 This reconstruction would have flown in the face of all existing anthropological evidence, howeverâ??none of the practices in the native cultures studied resembled New Testament practicesâ??and, unlike the lost tribes thesis, had no basis in scripture. Given the parameters in which they had to work, the suggestion that the Indians' ancestors engaged in New Testament practices would have created rather than solved problems and would have required an entirely new reconstruction of eventsâ??based on a new reading of the text and other evidenceâ??to be taken seriously. In short, keeping with our example, either the suggestion that the Indians' ancestors practiced baptism or the model proposed by Adair, Smith, and others would have to be false; they could not both be true, norâ??and this is importantâ??could the former be considered an unimportant, inconsequential, and perfectly logical modification of the latter.

And, for what it's worth, the one inside account of Lamanite culture that we get in the Book of Mormon (the sons of Mosiah) does not depict the Lamanites as uncivilized. And when the Nephites are destroyed, he observes that they are more barbarous than the Lamanites.

John W. Welch's 1985 essay "Answering B. H. Roberts Questions and An 'Unparallel'" is sufficiently definitive in its response to claims made about View of the Hebrews as a potential source for the Book of Mormon that I have yet to see any critic mention its existence, let alone address his points. George D. Smith in American Apocrypha in 2003 for example, or Palmer. They boldly, bravely, objectively, honestly, completely, and forthrightly, ignore it.

You have to admire such academic integrity.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Thinking]

Close your eyes for a moment and picture a world in which the...

Every time I close my eyes I can only remember this far into your post and I have to open them again to keep reading!

[cksalmon]

Now that I'm thinking about this more, didn't E. Smith believe they had left after the destruction of the second temple (at the hands of the Romans) in lieu of the initial exile? This would probably account for his belief that they had known of Christ's teachings.

Hey Stuess--

At this point, E. Smith distinguishes between the dispersal of the "Israelites"--the ten northern tribes of Israel (lost after the Babylonian expulsion)--and the much later dispersal of the "Jews" (in the south) following the destruction of the Temple post 70 AD.

(I haven't looked at VotH in a long time, so I had to brush up myself.)

Chris

[Doctor Steuss]

Hey Stuess--

At this point, E. Smith distinguishes between the dispersal of the "Israelites"--the ten northern tribes of Israel (lost after the Babylonian expulsion)--and the much later dispersal of the "Jews" (in the south) following the destruction of the Temple post 70 AD.

(I haven't looked at VotH in a long time, so I had to brush up myself.)

Chris

Thank you Chris. With so many books (and articles) that I have waiting to be read the first time, it is very appreciated that you took the time to save me from having to return to a book that I didn't particularly enjoy to read it a second time.

Youâ??re the best (well, almost the bestâ?¦ Sgt. Bosco B.A. Baracus is technically above you; sorry).

[maklelan]

That they were Israelite in origin.

That they believed in a future gathering of Israel and restoration of the tribes.

That they migrated from the old world for religious purposes

That the migrants divided into civilized and uncivilized groups with long wars between them and the eventual destruction of the civilized by the uncivilized.

That the Christian gospel was preached in ancient America.

That there was a "lost book" with "yellow leaves" buried by the ancients.

That the book used extensive quotations from the prophecies of Isaiah

That the book gave a description of extensive military fortifications with military observatories or "watch towers" overlooking them

That the ancient peoples underwent change from monarchy to republican forms of government.

Was Ethan Smith a seer of some sort? Are these coincidences or lucky guesses. Just how do others process this information?

These are far too general to be meaningful. I can couch a summary of just about any two books in terms that will make them sound related. You just have to blur the lines until they run together. Things like specific names and places is something far different.

[cksalmon]

The full text of the book is here, so there shouldn't be a problem to actually cite the location for the claims in the OP.

Unfortunately, this is the first edition (1823), rather than the much expanded second edition of 1825 (nearly doubled in size).

With regard to the OP...

That they were Israelite in origin.

That they believed in a future gathering of Israel and restoration of the tribes.

That they migrated from the old world for religious purposes

That the migrants divided into civilized and uncivilized groups with long wars between them and the eventual destruction of the civilized by the uncivilized.

That the Christian gospel was preached in ancient America.

That there was a "lost book" with "yellow leaves" buried by the ancients.

That the book used extensive quotations from the prophecies of Isaiah

That the book gave a description of extensive military fortifications with military observatories or "watch towers" overlooking them

That the ancient peoples underwent change from monarchy to republican forms of government.

...what can be reasonably garnered from the first edition, as near as I can tell, is bolded; what cannot be is bookended with *asterisks*; that which is ambiguous is bolded and italicized.

That they were Israelite in origin.

*That they believed in a future gathering of Israel and restoration of the tribes.*

That they migrated from the old world for religious purposes -- E. Smith relates a story to the effect that a group of NA's left their homeland because the people there were incredibly wicked and that God guided them to this land (which certainly might indicate a religious purpose)

*That the migrants divided into civilized and uncivilized groups with long wars between them and the eventual destruction of the civilized by the uncivilized.*

*That the Christian gospel was preached in ancient America.*

That there was a "lost book" with "yellow leaves" buried by the ancients. -- there is no mention of a book with yellow leaves, but there is certainly the mention of a lost book that would eventually be regained.

That the book used extensive quotations from the prophecies of Isaiah -- E. Smith's book certainly does. See Chapter Four and the Conclusion.

*That the book gave a description of extensive military fortifications with military observatories or "watch towers" overlooking them*

*That the ancient peoples underwent change from monarchy to republican forms of government.*

I don't have access to the 1825 edition, but I might check in B. H. Roberts's "A Parallel" later on (as he was working from the second edition).

cks

[cinepro]

These are far too general to be meaningful. I can couch a summary of just about any two books in terms that will make them sound related. You just have to blur the lines until they run together. Things like specific names and places is something far different.

Really? Can you come up with nine similarly similar points between The Book of Mormon and The Davinci Code?

[maklelan]

Really? Can you come up with nine similarly similar points between The Book of Mormon and The Davinci Code?

Yeah, but what would be the point of doing it? Is that kind of minutiae really worth dedicating all that time to when it's not going to change your perspective or this debate in the slightest way?

My point is valid, and these examples are far too generalized to be compared to things like Nahom and Irreantum. If you disagree then address the main point and not a hyperbolic sidebar.

[Uncertain]

I said this:

Well, I am not a apologist. But my guess would be they would argue these sorts of parallels are to vague and could occur by coincidence. While parallels like Sheum and Pahoran are more complex and of a qualitatively different type and are unlikely to occur by chance.

All the Best,

Uncertain

Compare to this:

These are far too general to be meaningful. I can couch a summary of just about any two books in terms that will make them sound related. You just have to blur the lines until they run together. Things like specific names and places is something far different.

Man I'm good I heard apologist get paid for this kind of thing. When can I expect my check in the mail ?

All the Best,

Uncertain

[ERayR]

How about, he went to the local university library and read all the books they had that was remotly connected to the subject and included them in his book?

[maklelan]

Man I'm good I heard apologist get paid for this kind of thing. When can I expect my check in the mail ?

Make a valid point and we'll see.

[Uncertain]

Make a valid point and we'll see.

Hi makelan,

Well the point I made was exactly the same as the point you made. So lets say we both made valid points .

All the Best,

Uncertain

[cinepro]

Yeah, but what would be the point of doing it? Is that kind of minutiae really worth dedicating all that time to when it's not going to change your perspective or this debate in the slightest way?

My point is valid, and these examples are far too generalized to be compared to things like Nahom and Irreantum. If you disagree then address the main point and not a hyperbolic sidebar.

No one has claimed the points in the OP are of the same (dubious) precision as "NHM" and "Irreantum".

As far as I can tell, the OP is just noting some similarities between "View of the Hebrews" and "The Book of Mormon". And I don't agree that similar parallels can be drawn between any two books; you're the one making the claim, so you will need to back it up. The themes, dates of publication, and locations of publication between "View of the Hebrews" and "The Book of Mormon" are similar enough that it is insulting to dismiss them with a wave of the hand and a hazy, unfounded generalization.

There may be other good reasons to doubt a connection, but "any two books will have similar similarities" isn't one of them.

[MormonMason]

This will be easier for some than others, but I'm really interested in everyone's thoughts on something.

Close your eyes for a moment and picture a world in which the Book of Mormon's description of ancient american peoples and geography "fits" and is complimented by all existing knowledge of the old and new worlds during the time in which it took place.

Now, with the Book of Mormon as a real, accurate "account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang", that reality becomes the basis for comparison of old books which attempted to speculate and explain the ancient history of the americas in various ways, before the true account came out in 1830. Looking back, how close did some of those speculative works come to "reality"?

Specifically, I wonder how others have accounted for the bulls-eyes that Ethan Smith was able to publish in 1823, before the Book of Mormon provided the ancient americans' true and accurate record to the world. (Because I haven't been able to, personally)

How could Ethan Smith have known, 7 years before the truth was revealed, for example:

That they were Israelite in origin.

That they believed in a future gathering of Israel and restoration of the tribes.

That they migrated from the old world for religious purposes

That the migrants divided into civilized and uncivilized groups with long wars between them and the eventual destruction of the civilized by the uncivilized.

That the Christian gospel was preached in ancient America.

That there was a "lost book" with "yellow leaves" buried by the ancients.

That the book used extensive quotations from the prophecies of Isaiah

That the book gave a description of extensive military fortifications with military observatories or "watch towers" overlooking them

That the ancient peoples underwent change from monarchy to republican forms of government.

Was Ethan Smith a seer of some sort? Are these coincidences or lucky guesses. Just how do others process this information?

Gotta run but thought I would hammer out a quick response.

From having read the actual source material, many of these are not bull's eyes at all. The "Christian gospel" was preached according to Ethan Smith because a number of those who came here came from the Greco-Roman period (sounds more like Solomon Spalding than the Book of Mormon, which Book of Mormon places all three major migrations centuries before the Christian Era). Joseph Smith would have been much safer in the eyes of the critics had he taken the tack in View of the Hebrews rather than hewing an independent course. The Book of Mormon's worldview was unique in its presentation.

The Book of Mormon form of government is NOT a republican government in the sense in which we (and those of Joseph Smith's time period) understand and experienced it. The Book of Mormon peoples transitioned from a reign of kings to a reign of judges (this sort of rule of government is anathema to both Republican and Democratic Republican governments).

The lost book with yellow leaves of View of the Hebrews was some sort of parchment whereas the Book of Mormon was made of an alloy of gold (identified as "plates of ore" in the Book of Mormon). Joseph Smith would have been "safer" in claiming parchment than in claiming gold plates--in the eyes of various critics of the past.

Several old, Native American traditions I have heard over the years speak of warring factions, one civilized and the other not so civilized, or, the one basically good and the other evil, and so forth (Chachapoyas vs. the Inca; Good Maya vs. Evil Maya, etc.). One native Maya with whom I once spoke told of a tradition of his people which, to me, sounded very much like the Book of Mormon (he had not read it or even seen a copy at that time).

The Moundbuilders, of whom View of the Hebrews speaks, did not build fortifications. Those structures which appeared at first glance to be fortifications really were sacred enclosures. The Maya, however, really did build fortifications--as did other tribes in Mesoamerica (and in the Book of Mormon, for that matter). The Book of Mormon's descriptions of the fortifications differed in substantial ways from what people thought of the Moundbuilders' sacred structures.

Please define "religious purposes" when comparing View of the Hebrews with the Book of Mormon. I find that these purposes differ in various ways between the two books when taken as a whole.

Extensive use of Isaiah does occur but these do not parallel fully those passages which occur in the Book of Mormon, and quite a few used in View of the Hebrews do not occur in the Book of Mormon at all--in any edition. Most of the extensive quotations in the Book of Mormon exist in the form of entire chapters quoted wholesale from the first fourteen chapters and chapters 49-50 of Isaiah, as well as a form of Isaiah 53. On the other hand, View of the Hebrews does not quote from Isaiah in the same manner as those found in the Book of Mormon, Isaiah quotations in View of the Hebrews being much shorter and more scattered than in the Book of Mormon.

View of the Hebrews quotes from Isaiah in the following order: 48:17-18; 11:11-12, 15-16; 18:2, 7; 60:1, 3, 8-9; 66:20; 65:7-9, 17; 14:1; [49:18-23 (not actually quoted)]; 11:12; 56:8; [49:18-22 (again not quoted)]; 49:21; [63:1-6 (not quoted)]; 63:10, 15-18; etc.

I would have cited more but have run out of time to post the rest of the Isaiah references from View of the Hebrews in its 1825 edition. This will have to wait until I get access to a computer again...but I think an idea may be had of the haphazard nature of the Isaiah quotations in View of the Hebrews as opposed to wholesale quotation of entire chapters in the Book of Mormon. I may or may not have time to post the rest later so don't anyone hold their breath!

[maklelan]

No one has claimed the points in the OP are of the same (dubious) precision as "NHM" and "Irreantum".

The opening poster seems to. That's kind of the point of the thread.

As far as I can tell, the OP is just noting some similarities between "View of the Hebrews" and "The Book of Mormon".

It's very clearly a patronization of the thread about BoM bullseyes. Don't pretend it's anything other than that.

And I don't agree that similar parallels can be drawn between any two books;

I said "just about any two books," and it was quite clearly hyperbolic. My point is that these "bullseyes" are weakly manufactured generalizations that don't at all succeed in marginalizing the correlations being found between the Book of Mormon and the historical record, and that such generalizations can easily be produced between two related contexts. I know you recognize hyperbole when you see it, so you can drop this silly little game; and even if I did do it, you wouldn't change your tone or your support of this thread, so the point is really worthless for me to make. You are quite aware of that.

you're the one making the claim, so you will need to back it up.

I already explained that it was hyperbole, and you recognized that the first time you read my post. Calling someone on hyperbolic statements just so you can feel like you scored a quarter of a point against our team isn't a remarkably smooth criticism, especially for you. I have respected your objectivity and intelligence in the past, but you know as well as I do that this point is well below both of us.

The themes, dates of publication, and locations of publication between "View of the Hebrews" and "The Book of Mormon" are similar enough that it is insulting to dismiss them with a wave of the hand and a hazy, unfounded generalization.

You know as well as I that View of the Hebrews in no way influenced the Book of Mormon. I don't think it's necessary to rehash tired old arguments like this just so you can keep this battered old ball in the air for a few more volleys.

There may be other good reasons to doubt a connection, but "any two books will have similar similarities" isn't one of them.

I didn't say that. It's one thing to harp on this minutiae, and it's another altogether to have to alter my statement so the harping sounds less desperate. I said "just about any two books," and as you knew from the very beginning, it was hyperbole. I'm not going to waste my time with these infantile games if you insist on asserting that I must provide evidence to support a clearly hyperbolic claim that has little to nothing to do with my primary argument, and ignoring my primary argument, which is perfectly valid. You're smarter than that.

[cksalmon]

You know as well as I that View of the Hebrews in no way influenced the Book of Mormon. I don't think it's necessary to rehash tired old arguments like this just so you can keep this battered old ball in the air for a few more volleys.

Hey mak--

I don't know that, and I'm not sure how I would go about finding out.

This...

View of the Hebrews in no way influenced the Book of Mormon

...is an undemonstrable proposition. More like a faith claim.

We can show parallels and demonstrate possible influence, but we can't state as a truth claim a proposition about something that didn't happen. Or at least I can't.

cks

[maklelan]

Hey mak--

I don't know that, and I'm not sure how I would go about finding out.

This...

...is an undemonstrable proposition. More like a faith claim.

We can show parallels and demonstrate possible influence, but we can't state as a truth claim a proposition about something that didn't happen. Or at least I can't.

cks

Since no influence can be shown, since the similarities are very general, and since the differences are far more numerous and substantial, the most logical conclusion is that no influence took place. I'm perfectly confident in that conclusion, so much so that I'm perfectly comfortable saying I know no influence took place. If you can show me to be wrong then do so, but I can't change what you know.

[cksalmon]

Since no influence can be shown, since the similarities are very general, and since the differences are far more numerous and substantial, the most logical conclusion is that no influence took place. I'm perfectly confident in that conclusion, so much so that I'm perfectly comfortable saying I know no influence took place. If you can show me to be wrong then do so, but I can't change what you know.

You're loading the dice, here. You've already assumed the truth of your conclusion.

(1) (I believe that) no influence can be shown

(2) Therefore, I know there was no influence

Or, we might rephrase as:

(3) There was no influence

(4) Therefore, there was no influence

Even if no influence can be sufficiently demonstrated to the satisfaction of the BoM defender, he still doesn't have epistemic justification to conclude that there was no influence. Let's swap it out.

(5) (I believe that) no credible evidence can demonstrate a link between BoM and any historical peoples of Mesoamerica

(6) Therefore, I know BoM is not a history of any historical peoples of Mesoamerica

Only special pleading, I think, would allow you to accept your own conclusion as legitimate yet reject mine. In truth, I believe, both conclusions are fallacious.

I find the correspondences between the two works intriguing, if non-definitive (as did B. H. Roberts, so I suppose I'm in good company).

cks