View Of The Hebrews Bull's-eyes

[Bennion Curio]

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.

In View of the Hebrews(1825, pp. 219-220), Ethan Smith put forward the idea that evidence had already been uncovered that might prove the ancient americans were of Hebrew origin. One example he gave is that of Mr. Merrick, who had plowed his field in Pittsfield, Mass. and uncovered a a sealed leather container with 4 pages of parchment written in Hebrew. These pages were described by Smith as â??leaves of a dark yellow, and contained some kind of writingâ?. According to Smith, 1 page was destroyed and the remaining 3 were taken by a Mr. Larned to Cambridge to have them examined.

In looking up that reference for Dr. Steuss, there are more similarities between Ethan Smithâ??s speculations and what turned out to be reality(BoM). Bulls-eye is of course a subjective term, but Ethan Smith hit the nail pretty close to the head on many of these, with not much more to go on but â??pop cultureâ? and â??early American folkloreâ?.

A. Hebrew migrants to this continent had inspired prophets who could fortell the future.

B. The chiefs made use of a breastplate fastened with prescious stones.

C. They used a hieroglyphic writing that must have been learned in the old world.

D. A great gentile nation would raise up and become the savior of Isreal in America.

E. They were visited by a messiah figure.

Compared to some of the book of mormon evidences that are given the label â??bulls-eyeâ? I think some of Ethan Smithâ??s speculations are pretty darn strong. I mean, without a single piece of physical evidence, he was able to know that Hebrews inhabited this continent and used a hieroglyphic style of writing that they brought with them from the old world. Thatâ??s hitting the nail pretty close to the head, considering there was and is still no evidence of such a thing, except for the Book of Mormon.

[maklelan]

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

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

If everything that cannot be empirically proven must be designated a faith claim then we need to recall all the history textbooks in all the schools throughout the world, because they're much too thick.

(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

I don't find them intriguing, and I have yet to see anyone compose a cogent argument for a connection between the two. Irrespective, the correlations drawn by the author of this thread are far too generalized to be in the same category as those in the BoM thread. Is there disagreement with that point, or only with the dicta of my posts?

[Doctor Steuss]

In View of the Hebrews(1825, pp. 219-220)[...]

Thank you for taking the time to look that up for me.

-Stu

[cksalmon]

If everything that cannot be empirically proven must be designated a faith claim then we need to recall all the history textbooks in all the schools throughout the world, because they're much too thick.

I don't find them intriguing, and I have yet to see anyone compose a cogent argument for a connection between the two. Irrespective, the correlations drawn by the author of this thread are far too generalized to be in the same category as those in the BoM thread. Is there disagreement with that point, or only with the dicta of my posts?

I certainly disagree with your dicta insofar as they are fallacious. And, I will note (though it should be obvious) that I disagree with them specifically because they are fallacious.

I'm not keeping up with the BoM thread, though perhaps I'll check in. Given its title and what little I've read (say, the first page shortly after the thread began), I don't think the two threads are in the same category: the BoM thread is an invitation to list and discuss the very best "bulls-eyes" in BoM from any and all available sources whatsoever; this thread is about possible correspondences between two specific entitiesâ??VotH and BoM. Not the same sort of thing at all.

and I have yet to see anyone compose a cogent argument for a connection between the two

I don't know what would make for a cogent argument in your view.

(1) VotH was published prior to BoM.

(2) VotH was available in JS's general locale.

(3) Ethan Smith was Oliver Cowdery's pastor prior to Cowdery's involvement with JS and the coming forth of the BoM.

Those facts set the stage for any discussion of possible influence.

And I suspect they are among the reasons B. H. Roberts found the parallels intriguing. It's possible, I suppose, that you're able to see clearly the utter ridiculousness of the comparison, while Roberts just wasn't up to the task. But, I wouldn't bet money on that.

(That's an argument to authority, by the way.) ;-)

cks

[smac97]

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:

I note, for the record, that you are plagiarizing the Wikipedia article on View of the Hebrews (and/or BH Roberts). Please provide proper attribution next time, 'kay?

That they were Israelite in origin.

Speculation about the origins of the American Indians was a popular topic in the early 19th century. The Wikipedia article you're cribbing from mentions this.

And nobody has claimed this as a "bullseye" for Joseph Smith, so your clumsy attempt to analogize "bullseyes" fails right out of the chute.

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

This is a common believe in Christendom.

And again, no corollary "bullseye" claim for Joseph Smith.

That they migrated from the old world for religious purposes

And what "purposes" were they?

I'm curious to see if you can answer the question, or whether you're "research" into this matter is limited to skimming a Wikipedia article.

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.

Again, no corollary "bullseye" claims for Joseph Smith on these points.

Do you see the problem here? The "bullseye" claims sometimes touted by LDS apologists relate to elements of The Book of Mormon that could not have been known to Joseph Smith in the early 19th century, but which have been validated via empirical means (or for which empirical evidence has been found) in the 20th century.

I am unaware that any of the points you've raised have been validated or evidenced. They are accepted by the Latter-day Saints on faith.

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

This is interesting. The Wikipedia article you are plagiarizing references Grant Palmer's An Insider's View of Mormon Origins as the source for this claim. And yet I have searched this online version of View of the Hebrews and have not found any reference to "yellow leaves." However, this is the first edition of View of the Hebrews, published in 1823. However, in the second edition of View of the Hebrews, there is purportedly a discussion of the so-called "Pittsfield Parchment" that Ethan Smith produced to support the stories of the Indians' "lost book." Here's some information on that:

The Pittsfield parchment story was the most important evidence Ethan Smith produced to support the stories of the Indians' lost book.39 Joseph Merrick of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, owned land on "Indian Hill," where he allegedly discovered a black leather strap, sewn with sinews and containing dark yellow leaves of an old parchment. In 1815 he brought them to the Rev. Mr. Sylvester Larned of Pittsfield.40 Larned discovered the standard texts of a Jewish phylactery on the leaves. He wrote Merrick a letter with his translation of the Hebrew script and then took the leaves to Cambridge for further examination.41 There he left them with a Dr. Eliot, who died soon after. Smith later tried unsuccessfully to locate the parchment leaves, although he continued to believe in their existence.

39. The Pittsfield Parchment story is found in E. Smith (pp. 217-25) in the 1825 edition. That year Josiah Priest, The Wonders of Nature and Providence (Albany, 1825), 290, began a chapter "extracted from the Rev. E. Smith's View of the Hebrews, with some additional remarks." In 1837 Parley P. Pratt cited parts of the story in A Voice of Warning and Instruction to All People (Independence, MO: Zion's Printing and Publishing Co., 1943), 79. Mormon historian B. H. Roberts pointed to the Pittsfield Parchment story as proof for the Book of Mormon in New Witnesses for God, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1926), 2:49-50.

40. Larned had just finished Andover and was preparing to enter Cambridge. By the time he preached in Canandaigua in 1817 and 1818, he had known the story for several years. See William Sprague, Annals of the Congregational Pulpit, Vol. 2, Annals of the American Pulpit (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1869), 556-71.

41. The letter in E. Smith (p. 220) reads as follows: "Sir, I have examined the parchment manuscripts which you had the goodness to give me. After some time and with much difficulty and assistance I have ascertained their meaning, which is as follows; (I have numbered the manuscripts.) No. I is translated by Deut. vi. 4-9 inclusive. No. 2, by Deut xi. 13-21 verses inclusive. No 3, Exod. xiii, 11-16 verses inclusive. I am &c. SYLVESTER LARNED"

Assuming that Signature Books got its facts right, the reference to "yellow leaves" did not appear until the 1825 edition of VOTH (see here). This may be significant given that Joseph Smith's account of the origins of The Book of Mormon have him learning of the "gold plates" in September of 1823.

It would have been difficult for Ethan Smith's 1825 reference to "yellow leaves" to be the origin of Joseph Smith's account of learning about the Gold Plates in 1823.

That the book used extensive quotations from the prophecies of Isaiah

And again, no corollary "bullseye" claim for Joseph Smith.

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

AFAIK, The Book of Mormon does not include any references to "watch towers." The term itself does not exist in the text. There are six instances of "tower" appearing in the text, only one of which (Alma 50:4) relates to a tower in a military context.

Watchtowers are not exactly a unique phenomenon in warfare.

And again, no corollary "bullseye" claim for Joseph Smith.

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

And again, no corollary "bullseye" claim for Joseph Smith.

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

If your questions were asked in good faith, I'd respond. But they aren't, so I won't.

-Smac

[maklelan]

I certainly disagree with your dicta insofar as they are fallacious. And, I will note (though it should be obvious) that I disagree with them specifically because they are fallacious.

I disagree.

I'm not keeping up with the BoM thread, though perhaps I'll check in. Given its title and what little I've read (say, the first page shortly after the thread began), I don't think the two threads are in the same category: the BoM thread is an invitation to list and discuss the very best "bulls-eyes" in BoM from any and all available sources whatsoever; this thread is about possible correspondences between two specific entitiesâ??VotH and BoM. Not the same sort of thing at all.

This thread is very clearly an attempt to patronize the other thread by trying to show that whatever correlations can be drawn between the Book of Mormon and the historical record can also be drawn between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews. Do you feel the intention of this thread is not to antagonize the participants in the other thread?

I don't know what would make for a cogent argument in your view.

(1) VotH was published prior to BoM.

(2) VotH was available in JS's general locale.

(3) Ethan Smith was Oliver Cowdery's pastor prior to Cowdery's involvement with JS and the coming forth of the BoM.

Those facts set the stage for any discussion of possible influence.

They set the stage, but once the evidence is investigated thoroughly it's clear that the Book of Mormon differs too significantly and in far to many details to have been influenced by View of the Hebrews. The general interest in the lost tribes of Israel, the zeal of the Great Awakening, and the presence of the American Indians made that theory prevalent, but it doesn't mean everyone aped the idea from each other.

And I suspect they are among the reasons B. H. Roberts found the parallels intriguing. It's possible, I suppose, that you're able to see clearly the utter ridiculousness of the comparison, while Roberts just wasn't up to the task. But, I wouldn't bet money on that.

I didn't say the comparison was ridiculous, it's just not valid.

(That's an argument to authority, by the way.) ;-)

The argument doesn't work on more levels than that.

By the way, I would appreciate a response to my last concern. You only responded to the insignificant part of it.

[Jaybear]

Speculation about the origins of the American Indians was a popular topic in the early 19th century. The Wikipedia article you're cribbing from mentions this.

And nobody has claimed this as a "bullseye" for Joseph Smith, so your clumsy attempt to analogize "bullseyes" fails right out of the chute.

Again, no corollary "bullseye" claims for Joseph Smith on these points.

I am unaware that any of the points you've raised have been validated or evidenced. They are accepted by the Latter-day Saints on faith.

-Smac

You are missing the point.

The Bulleye exist only if you assume for purpose of discussion that the Book of Mormon, which was not "translated" at the time, is an authentic translation.

That the book used extensive quotations from the prophecies of Isaiah is truly remarkable.

[cksalmon]

I disagree.

I believe I have logic on my side here. You are certainly free to disagree, but, per your logic, I can then also illogically state that "I know that BoM is not an ancient document" based on my understanding and interpretation of the relevant data points. I wouldn't, but that's because I find it a logically fallacious manner in which to argue a point. I can't make it more plain than that, so I won't take your disagreement personally.

This thread is very clearly an attempt to patronize the other thread by trying to show that whatever correlations can be drawn between the Book of Mormon and the historical record can also be drawn between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews. Do you feel the intention of this thread is not to antagonize the participants in the other thread?

I really don't care, actually. It's just a message board discussion. People discussing ideas. I don't take anything here personally anymore. If they feel antagonized, they can respond in any manner they feel is justified (as you and I have done). I don't like people being snotty any more than the next guy, but I don't find the thread anything other than a provocative invitation to dialogue. Do you find it, on some level, personally offensive, antagonistic? That would be odd, in my view, but I'm not you, don't know you, and so won't press the issue.

They set the stage, but once the evidence is investigated thoroughly it's clear that the Book of Mormon differs too significantly and in far to many details to have been influenced by View of the Hebrews.

No, it doesn't. Difference, even significant difference, is not a definitive argument against influence. Goodness! (That's generally how influence works.) If so, it's just as good an argument for later adaptation of underlying source (which actually is the argument).

The general interest in the lost tribes of Israel, the zeal of the Great Awakening, and the presence of the American Indians made that theory prevalent, but it doesn't mean everyone aped the idea from each other.

Certainly not. But, the "the general interest in the lost tribes of Israel, the zeal of the Great Awakening, and the presence of the American Indians" is certainly not an argument in favor of BoM's antiquity (not that you're so arguing). Rather, it can be seen as evidence in favor of a nineteenth century origin of BoM. Which, of course, brings in the influence question.

By the way, I would appreciate a response to my last concern. You only responded to the insignificant part of it.

I'm afraid you're going to have try a restatement. I'll do my best to answer more efficiently.

cks

[maklelan]

I believe I have logic on my side here. You are certainly free to disagree, but, per your logic, I can then also illogically state that "I know that BoM is not an ancient document" based on my understanding and interpretation of the relevant data points. I wouldn't, but that's because I find it a logically fallacious manner in which to argue a point. I can't make it more plain than that, so I won't take your disagreement personally.

The statement wasn't so much a part of my argument as a sidebar, since I'm pretty sure cinepro doesn't subscribe to the View of the Hebrews theory. I just want someone to respond to my main concern, but at this point all anyone is concerned with is the minutiae of those parts of my posts that have absolutely nothing to do with my primary concern.

I really don't care, actually. It's just a message board discussion. People discussing ideas. I don't take anything here personally anymore. If they feel antagonized, they can respond in any manner they feel is justified (as you and I have done). I don't like people being snotty anymore than the next guy, but I don't find the thread anything other than a provocative invitation to dialogue. Do you find it, on some level, personally offensive, antagonistic? That would be odd, in my view, but I'm not you, don't know you, and so won't press the issue.

I'm not taking it personally and am not at all offended, I just want to keep the discussion on track. Since no one seems interested in that, I'm done here. I'm sorry if I was abrasive or rude, but I'm a little frustrated that the only thing people are responding to are flippant things I've written that had nothing to do with my primary argument. In the end, this thread is a failed attempt to downplay the legitimacy of the evidence that exists that the Book of Mormon is an historical record. That's my case, and as it stands uncontested, I take my leave.

[smac97]

You are missing the point.

The Bulleye exist only if you assume for purpose of discussion that the Book of Mormon, which was not "translated" at the time, is an authentic translation.

Well, I'm not sure about that. In fact, the "bullseye" arguments used by LDS apologists are intended to persuade skeptics, not believers.

For example, Nahom and Wadi Sayq are often raised as "bullseyes" by apologists. The argument is that Joseph Smith could not have known about NHM in the Arabian peninsuela, that almost due east from this area is a coastal region that fits the description of Bountiful, etc. These claims are based on the assumption that the audience has not accepted the historicity of The Book of Mormon, and hence need convincing.

That said, I can see where you are coming from.

-Smac

[cksalmon]

The statement wasn't so much a part of my argument as a sidebar, since I'm pretty sure cinepro doesn't subscribe to the View of the Hebrews theory. I just want someone to respond to my main concern, but at this point all anyone is concerned with is the minutiae of those parts of my posts that have absolutely nothing to do with my primary concern.

Okay. But, cinepro didn't start the thread, and I haven't actually responded to cinepro, but to you. I'm not sure what cinepro has to do with our particular discussion. "All anyone is concerned with...?" I stated, and stand behind my statement, that certain of your comments are fallacious. Those fallacious comments bear directly on the topic of this thread.

I'm not taking it personally and am not at all offended, I just want to keep the discussion on track. Since no one seems interested in that, I'm done here. I'm sorry if I was abrasive or rude, but I'm a little frustrated that the only thing people are responding to are flippant things I've written that had nothing to do with my primary argument. In the end, this thread is a failed attempt to downplay the legitimacy of the evidence that exists that the Book of Mormon is an historical record. That's my case, and as it stands uncontested, I take my leave.

Okay. I thought that the point of the thread was to examine certain correspondences between VotH and BoM (and, I believe I've been most objective pursuant to that goal--see my posts engaging the OP supra), not to engage with the (positive) evidence that BoM is an historical record. That's actually just not what this thread is about, mak.

I find it odd that you would take your leave from a thread about correspondences between VotH and BoM because you believe this thread "to downplay the legitimacy of the evidence that exists that the Book of Mormon is an historical record." This thread isn't about "the legitimacy of the evidence that exists that the Book of Mormon is an historical record."

You've jumped from examining the correspondences between two works (one prior to the other) to leaving a thread because it apparently denigrates your belief in the antiquity of BoM.

It would appear that your faith claim is paramount (that BoM is true), while the possibility of influence of VotH upon BoM is deemed an illegitimate inquiry from the get-go (it wasn't for B. H. Roberts). Or, what I believe just is the case and no evidence against my belief (however damning or merely circumstantial) could possibly be valid (since I already know that there is no influence involved).

Meh. I agree that there isn't much of a discussion to be had at this point.

Best.

cks

[maklelan]

Okay. But, cinepro didn't start the thread, and I haven't actually responded to cinepro, but to you. I'm not sure what cinepro has to do with our particular discussion. "All anyone is concerned with...?" I stated, and stand behind my statement, that certain of your comments are fallacious. Those fallacious comments bear directly on the topic of this thread.

We have different ideas about the topic of this thread.

Okay. I thought that the point of the thread was to examine certain correspondences between VotH and BoM (and, I believe I've been most objective pursuant to that goal--see my posts engaging the OP supra), not to engage with the (positive) evidence that BoM is an historical record. That's actually just not what this thread is about, mak.

On August 2 the Bom Bull's-Eyes thread was started. Four days later the View of the Hebrews Bull's-eyes thread was started. Obviously the second thread is spun off of, and is a rebuttal to, the first. The most clear impetus is a desire to downplay the legitimacy of the Book of Mormon "bull's-eyes" and patronize people who appreciate those "bull's-eyes." Do you disagree?

I find it odd that you would take your leave from a thread about correspondences between VotH and BoM because you believe this thread "to downplay the legitimacy of the evidence that exists that the Book of Mormon is an historical record." This thread isn't about "the legitimacy of the evidence that exists that the Book of Mormon is an historical record."

You've jumped from examining the correspondences between two works (one prior to the other) to leaving a thread because it apparently denigrates your belief in the antiquity of BoM.

That's not at all what I said. I'm done here because no one is addressing my concern and there's no reason to stick around. I couldn't care less who denigrates my beliefs, and I'm surprised that you would attribute my leaving to something so petty.

It would appear that your faith claim is paramount (that BoM is true), while the possibility of influence of VotH upon BoM is deemed an illegitimate inquiry from the get-go (it wasn't for B. H. Roberts). Or, what I believe just is the case and no evidence against my belief (however damning or merely circumstantial) could possibly be valid (since I already know that there is no influence involved).

Meh. I agree that there isn't much of a discussion to be had at this point.

Best.

cks

You did your best to get some pot shots in while you completely misrepresented my argument.

[cksalmon]

You did your best to get some pot shots in while you completely misrepresented my argument.

I attempted to engage the issue.

cks