Book Of Mormon Bullseye?

[Sargon]

In the Ether 3:1 we read:

• 1 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared, (now the number of the vessels which had been prepared was eight) went forth unto the mount, which they called the mount Shelem, because of its exceeding height, and did molten out of a rock sixteen small stones; and they were white and clear, even as transparent glass; and he did carry them in his hands upon the top of the mount, and cried again unto the Lord, saying:
  

In Josephâ??s day, scholars didnâ??t believe that glass was known by civilizations as ancient as Jaredâ??s, which was around 3000 B.C. Had Joseph been scouring the best scholarship of his day in order to write the Book of Mormon this would have been a major blunder. But, what at first appears to be a major blunder, turns out once again to be a bulls-eye. This pattern is familiar.

Hugh Nibley comments in his book Lehi in the Desert; The World of the Jaredites; There were Jaredites:

This would make the invention of glass far older than anyone dreamed it was until the recent finding of such objects as Egyptian glass beads from â??the end of the third millennium B.C.â?50 and â??plaques of turquoise blue glass of excellent qualityâ? in the possession of one of the very earliest queens of Egypt.51 â??Very little . . . is known,â? writes Newberry, â??about the early history of glass,â? though that history â??can indeed be traced back to prehistoric times, for glass beads have been found in prehistoric graves.â? 52 We need not be surprised if the occurrences of glass objects before the sixteenth century B.C. â??are few and far between,â?53 for glass rots, like wood, and it is a wonder that any of it at all survives from remote antiquity. There is all the difference in the world, moreover, between few glass objects and none at all. One clot of ruddy dirt is all we have to show that the Mesopotamians were using iron knives at the very beginning of the third millennium B.C.â??but that is all we need. Likewise the earliest dated piece of glass known comes from the time of Amenhotep I; yet under his immediate successors glass vases appear that indicate an advanced technique in glass working: â??they reveal the art in a high state of proficiency; that must be the outcome of a long series of experiments,â? writes Newberry.54

So, what about this constitutes a bulls-eye? The fact that Joseph included glass in an account that was written allegedly 5000 years ago. He should not have done that. That would have been wrong, dumb, and a stupid thing for a con-artist to do. But, he did it. Today we know that glass very plausibly could have been known by Jared and his family.

[Rommelator]

From the ever venerable wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass#South_Asia

"During the Late Bronze Age [3300-1200 BCE] in Egypt and Western Asia there was an explosion in glass-making technology. Archaeological finds from this period include coloured glass ingots, vessels (often coloured and shaped in imitation of highly prized wares of semi-precious stones) and the ubiquitous beads."

Did you catch the bolded part? Very interesting....

[John Williams]

So, what about this constitutes a bulls-eye? The fact that Joseph included glass in an account that was written allegedly 5000 years ago. He should not have done that. That would have been wrong, dumb, and a stupid thing for a con-artist to do. But, he did it. Today we know that glass very plausibly could have been known by Jared and his family.

Actually, it would have been a dumb thing to do had Joseph Smith known that scholars didn't believe glass was made before 50 BC. As apologists are wont to ask, wouldn't he have had access to a large library to have known what the scholars were saying? Are you suggesting that he was working from a large numbers of scientific texts that no backwoods farmer would have had access to?

If it's not something Joseph would have known either way, it's not necessarily a bullseye. Just one less criticism that one could make about the Book of Mormon. As it is, the story of the Jaredite barges sinks on much less than the appearance of transparent stones.

[tithulta]

I think a better bullseye would be something like the Joseph Smith reformed Egyptian "caractors" actually showing up in Egypt *and* in the Americas. I guess I am just picky about preferring direct evidence over something like this. Really, this "evidence" demonstrates nothing. It is still highly improbable that the Book of Mormon is true since there is no direct evidence supporting it.

Even with this amazing revelation, there is still as much evidence to support the Book of Mormon as there is evidence to support that the sun goes around the earth.

[Chris Smith]

I hate to be picky, but your Nibley quote refers to "turquoise blue" glass beads, whereas the Book of Mormon refers to "transparent glass". I'd want to see evidence that ancient peoples had the capability to produce transparent glass (and did so often enough for this to be a useful analogy) before labeling this a bull's eye.

Oh, and what John W said, too.

[Vex]

I hate to be picky, but your Nibley quote refers to "turquoise blue" glass beads, whereas the Book of Mormon refers to "transparent glass". I'd want to see evidence that ancient peoples had the capability to produce transparent glass (and did so often enough for this to be a useful analogy) before labeling this a bull's eye.

Oh, and what John W said, too.

You do know naturally occurring quartz fits that description and is the most abundant naturally occurring substance (silica) on earth?

http://www.quartzsources.com/index-4.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_che...erties_of_glass

I find it more enlightening and interesting, not that Jared was able to produce the glass, but that the process aligns itself to how it would be produced.

1) Jared was in the mountains

2 & 3) He melts the silica from a rock

4) Given that the silica is from a rock as mentioned, it would be fairly easy to associate that rock to quartz.

To whit the knowledge of glass making is already been verified. There is no reason why Jared could not make the Glass like structure out of silica. Right location, right description, right procedure.

Compare this to the technology used for glass production circa 1800 you have the mining of sandstone, silica in an extremely impure state.

http://www.herald-mail.com/?cmd=displaysto...amp;format=html

Compare the two descriptions of the process and you have to allot Jared a very pure form of silica. Since that's the case then why would Joseph attempt to paint a description of a rather pure Quartz and not the process that was currently going on at the time (mining of sand stone for production of glass)? Seems rather counter intuitive to me.

[Chris Smith]

You do know naturally occurring quartz fits that description and is the most abundant naturally occurring substance (silica) on earth?

You're saying that naturally occurring quartz is glass?

[Vex]

You're saying that naturally occurring quartz is glass?

it is in effect, but no that's not what I am saying Glass is just reformed Silica, Quartz is Silica (depending on quality anywhere from 99-99.86% pure silica).

Given the high purity levels and the non-rarity of the materials in question, finding quartz to fit that description is fairly easy. Hence, "Transparent Glass", but still making reference to a color dictates to me that the purity of quartz would fit the description quite nicely.

For they were "White and Clear" Lets look at some quartz.

Naturally occurring:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2188/210846...bf13f58.jpg?v=0

Now lets look at processed, or refined quartz (which seems to be a similar process to what Br. Of Jared would have done)

Strictly speaking White and Clear are natural for Quartz. As Transparent Glass becomes to quartz when you refine it.

So are you saying that Naturally Occurring Quartz can't be used as glass?

[NorthboundZax]

I think we can all agree that both early 19th century scholars and Joseph Smith knew that clear quartz existed in the bronze age. If that is the definition of glass, it is even a less striking hit than I thought at the OP.

[Sargon]

Actually, it would have been a dumb thing to do had Joseph Smith known that scholars didn't believe glass was made before 50 BC. As apologists are wont to ask, wouldn't he have had access to a large library to have known what the scholars were saying? Are you suggesting that he was working from a large numbers of scientific texts that no backwoods farmer would have had access to?

If it's not something Joseph would have known either way, it's not necessarily a bullseye. Just one less criticism that one could make about the Book of Mormon. As it is, the story of the Jaredite barges sinks on much less than the appearance of transparent stones.

In order for naturalistic theories (like yours) to work Joseph must have had access to a vast array of scholarly material. There is simply too much he got right. Either Joseph had access to a secret library, or an ancient prophet named Mormon wrote the book. The short list of things that Joseph apparently got wrong at first is continually shortening.

Therefore, as we scan the short list of alleged "anomalies" we continually find it to be getting shorter, weaker, and less impressive. Each and every time we realize that Joseph got something that right that he should have gotten wrong had he produced the Book of Mormon according to naturalistic theories (requiring a secret source of scholarly information) we can rightly remove the item from the "anomaly" list and add it to the "bulls-eye" list.

[Sargon]

I think a better bullseye would be something like the Joseph Smith reformed Egyptian "caractors" actually showing up in Egypt *and* in the Americas. I guess I am just picky about preferring direct evidence over something like this. Really, this "evidence" demonstrates nothing. It is still highly improbable that the Book of Mormon is true since there is no direct evidence supporting it.

Even with this amazing revelation, there is still as much evidence to support the Book of Mormon as there is evidence to support that the sun goes around the earth.

The nature of the debate is such that direct evidence is unlikely to surface anytime soon. As John Sorenson said, and I paraphrase, "Nephite and Lamanite artifacts grace the finest museums of the world, we just don't recognize them for what they are."

Nevertheless, there is a great amount of evidence of varying degrees of strength that collectively point very strongly in the direction of an authentic Book of Mormon story.

The following list is not at all exhaustive.

HEBREW LINGUISTIC PARALLELS

Egyptian & Hebrew: The two most important languages Joseph could have chosenâ??â??â??John A. Tvetdnes, Stephen Ricks

Colophons in the Book of Mormonâ??â??- John Tvedtnes

Merismus in the Book of Mormon

Prophetic Perfect in BoMâ??â??-Donald W. Parry(FARMS)

The Construct Stateâ??â??-Donald W. Parry(FARMS) John A. Tvedtnes

Repetition of the Definite Article(â?theâ?) & Cognate Accusative(â?dreamed a dreamâ?)(4:27)â??â??-Donald W. Parry(FARMS)

Jesus born â??ATâ?? Jerusalem(3:35)â??â??-DCP

Alma 46:19, writing â??upon the rentâ? a Hebraismâ??â??-Daniel C. Peterson

Hebrew writing in Egyptian Charactersâ??â??-FAIR

Antithetical Parallelism in the Book of Mormonâ??â??-Donald W. Parry

Epanalepsisâ??â??-Larry G. Childs

And/If Conditional Sentence

Chiasmus

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN PARALLELS

Nephi and Asherah (D.C. Peterson)

Alma: A male Jewish nameâ??â??-Daniel C. Peterson(DCP) Paul Hoskisson

Nephi: Egyptian Name (John Gee)

Sariah

Pahoran & Paanchi

Prophetic Callings(5:13)â??â??-John Welch

King Benjaminâ??s Farewell Speechâ??â??-John Welch

Nature of Evidence & Proof; Ancient Near Eastern Records on Metal Plates; General Commentaryâ??â??-J. Tvedtnes Book(FARMS)

Orphism, Egypt and the Book of Mormon in antiquityâ??â??-Noel B. Reynolds

Margaret Barker and the Book of Mormonâ??â??-M. Barker M. Barker(video) Kevin Christensen

Hugh Nibley & the forty-day literature

Jewish temples outside of Jerusalem/Nephiâ??s Temple(4:58)â??â??-Daniel C. Peterson

Jewish Shipbuilding and Seafaring; Raphael Pataiâ??â??-John Tvedtnes

Metal Plates and the Book of Mormonâ??â??-William J. Hamblin William J. Adams

Ancient Hidden Textsâ??â??-John A. Tvedtnes

Legal Terminology for Thieves and Robbersâ??â??-John Welch

Shipbuilding in Ancient Arabia; Nephiâ??s Boat and Omanâ??â??-Noel B. Reynolds

Ancient Stones used for Light; Jared and Noahâ??â??-Nibley Tvedtnes

Book of Mormon Names in Ancient Hebrew Inscriptionsâ??â??-Tvedtnes, Gee, & Roper or PDF Version

The Illiad and the Book of Mormonâ??â??-John Tvedtnes

Korihor struck dumb, Ancient parallelsâ??â??-John Welch

Nephiâ??s Bountifulâ??â??-Warren P. Aston Journey of Faith

Jewish Feasts in the Book of Mormonâ??â??-John Welch

Lehiâ??s Family in the Desert, Arabian Parallels

Pseudepigrapha and the BoM, extra-biblical themes

Krister Stendahl (non-mormon biblical scholar) studies 3 Nephi

Reformed Egyptian

Mulek, son of King Zedekiah

Deseret and Bees

â??Without A Causeâ?

Nephiâ??s Bow

MESOAMERICAN PARALLELS

Mesoamerican timekeeping/â??baktunâ??; general commentary on Mesoamericaâ??â??-John E. Clark(baktun) John E. Clark(video) FAIR page

Mayan Armor and the Book of Mormon

The Horse Controversyâ??â??-John L. Sorenson Robert Bennett Jeff Lindsay Lehiâ??s Library

Swords in the Book of Mormonâ??â??-Matt Roper

Nephiâ??s Gardenâ??â??-John L. Sorenson

Ammon at the Waters of Sebus, Mesoamerican Contextâ??â??-Hugh Nibley Brant Gardner video

Concrete

Tropical Climate, Clothing

Heat on New Yearâ??s Day(Lehiâ??s Library)

Mesoamerican Writing Systems(2:20)

King Benjaminâ??s Speech: Festival of Booths

â??And it came to passâ?¦â? in the Book of Mormon

Metals in the BoM part 1

As system of weights and scales (Sorenson)

Elephants in America (Mike Ash) Gomphotheres (Jeff Lindsey) + MADB discussion

PLATES, TRANSLATION, COMPLEXITY, WITNESSESS

Book of Mormon Witnesses (Richard L. Anderson)

Personal Writings of the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Anderson)

Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the 8 Witnesses (Anderson)

How Witnesses Described the Gold Plates (Henrichson)

Not So Easily Dismissed: Some Facts for Which Counterexplanations of the Book of Mormon Will Need to Account (Daniel C. Peterson)

Real Artifacts from Moroniâ??s Stone Box

Time of Translation

Evidence for Dictation

Textual Consistency

Book of Mormon Politics vs. Josephâ??s Culture

Word Print Analysis

DNA ISSUES

DNA Part 1 DNA Part 2 DNA Part 3 DNA Part 4 DNA Part 5 DNA Part 6 DNA Part 7 DNA Part 8 DNA Part 9 DNA Part 10 DNA Part 11 DNA Part 12 DNA Part 13

OTHER

Mormonâ??s Editorial Method and Meta-Message (Brant A. Gardner)

Complexity and Internal Consistency of the Book of Mormon Part 1

Complexity part 2â??proper names, surnames, Nephite vs Jaredite names, etc.

Complexity part 3â??hundreds of characters in the BoM

Complexity part 4â??Warfare in the BoM

Complexity part 5â??Titles of Jesus

3 Nephi Earthquakeâ??â??-Jeff Lindsay John A. Tvedtnes Russel H. Ball

Ancient Diffusion of culture, agriculture, animals, technology

A Reply to Critics

Is Book of Mormon Scholarship Getting Weaker and Weaker?

Change in Book of Mormon; â??Godâ?? -> â??Son of Godâ?? in 1 Nephi â??â??- Peterson

Ancient Warfare in BoM, not like 1830â??â??-William J. Hamblin

Warfare in the Book of Mormon Symposium, Introduction

Warfare in the Book of Mormon, part 2; Intro by William Hamblin

The Sword of Laban as a Symbol of Divine Authority and Kingship (Brett L. Holbrook)

Glass in The Book of Mormon(Nibley)

http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/bom-evidences/

[Sargon]

I hate to be picky, but your Nibley quote refers to "turquoise blue" glass beads, whereas the Book of Mormon refers to "transparent glass". I'd want to see evidence that ancient peoples had the capability to produce transparent glass (and did so often enough for this to be a useful analogy) before labeling this a bull's eye.

Oh, and what John W said, too.

True, but it isn't the only type of glass mentioned in the article. Besides, colored glass indicates to me that glass making was even more advanced than simple clear, transparent glass making requires.

Northbound Zax said:

I think we can all agree that both early 19th century scholars and Joseph Smith knew that clear quartz existed in the bronze age. If that is the definition of glass, it is even a less striking hit than I thought at the OP.

Nibley said the following:

In Joseph Smith's day and long after there was not a scholar who did not accept Pliny's account of the origin of glass without question.49

49. D. B. Harden, "Ancient Glass,'' Antiquity 7 (1933): 419; Pliny, Natural History XXXVI, 191.

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?book...=glass+beads#49

It is far too simplistic to think of glass as equaling quartz crystals. In a sense, yes, quartz is glass. In another sense, no, quartz is not glass. By definition (among us geologists) glass is defined by having no crystal lattice. Quartz crystals have a crystal lattice.

The issue isn't about whether or not we can find the ancients using naturally occurring quartz crystals as glass. The issue is whether or not we find the ancients manufacturing their own glass as the brother of Jared did. Do we? Yes we do. Should one of the greatest con-artists of all time in 1828 have guessed it? No, he should not have.

[John Williams]

In order for naturalistic theories (like yours) to work Joseph must have had access to a vast array of scholarly material. There is simply too much he got right. Either Joseph had access to a secret library, or an ancient prophet named Mormon wrote the book. The short list of things that Joseph apparently got wrong at first is continually shortening.

No, that's an apologist argument that has little to no basis in fact. Even poor apologists like me have shown that the list of things Joseph "got right but couldn't possibly know" is so short as to be almost empty. As Uncle Dale said in another thread, given the prevalence of Mound Builder myths and the availability of information about Indians and Central Americans widely available in the popular press (read: newspapers, not libraries), Joseph Smith would have had all the information necessary to write a tale like the Book of the Mormon.

Therefore, as we scan the short list of alleged "anomalies" we continually find it to be getting shorter, weaker, and less impressive. Each and every time we realize that Joseph got something that right that he should have gotten wrong had he produced the Book of Mormon according to naturalistic theories (requiring a secret source of scholarly information) we can rightly remove the item from the "anomaly" list and add it to the "bulls-eye" list.

Again, there is almost nothing on the list of something Joseph got right "that he should have gotten wrong."

[John Williams]

The nature of the debate is such that direct evidence is unlikely to surface anytime soon. As John Sorenson said, and I paraphrase, "Nephite and Lamanite artifacts grace the finest museums of the world, we just don't recognize them for what they are."

Nevertheless, there is a great amount of evidence of varying degrees of strength that collectively point very strongly in the direction of an authentic Book of Mormon story.

The following list is not at all exhaustive.

Nor is it particularly convincing.

To paraphrase "As Good as it Gets," if that list did it for me, I'd be the happiest man in the world.

[Sargon]

Nor is it particularly convincing.

To paraphrase "As Good as it Gets," if that list did it for me, I'd be the happiest man in the world.

I suppose God can't even make everyone happy!

[Sargon]

Oh, and welcome back John W.

[John Williams]

I suppose God can't even make everyone happy!

Hey, leave God out of apologetics. One would imagine He wouldn't want to be associated with a lot of it.

[Vex]

I think we can all agree that both early 19th century scholars and Joseph Smith knew that clear quartz existed in the bronze age. If that is the definition of glass, it is even a less striking hit than I thought at the OP.

unfortunately your theory falls apart with knowledge of when LBA glass works were discovered: Knowledge of LBA glass working wasn't known prior to the printing of the book of Mormon. In fact the archeologist that discovered the glass of the LBA is Sir Flinders Petrie. Who wasn't even born until after the Book of Mormon was published. Source, Source

The current trend for glass production of the 1800 wasn't to go out and mine quartz for glass production but to harvest large quantities of sand stone. There they would refine it and remove the impurities. Since that is the modern process of JS time it would stand to reason that he would more likely used that process if it were a work of fiction.

In fact the knowledge of glass production in the LBA seems to indicate that it used pure forms of sand and not quartz for production:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5729/1756

That is not to say the quartz glass production was not occurring:

http://books.google.com/books?id=zzqxUOOgN...3&ct=result

The second paragraph explains the process.

Seems as the JS would have needed a time machine to get the information from LBA glass production. I think this is more of a hit than people are giving credit for.

[thesometimesaint]

John W:

I think God can take care of Himself pretty well. But back to the OP. It is an interesting bulls eye, unless you believe in the ever expanding Palmyra Public Reading Library.

[Sargon]

The current trend for glass production of the 1800 wasn't to go out and mine quartz for glass production but to harvest large quantities of sand stone. There they would refine it and remove the impurities. Since that is the modern process of JS time it would stand to reason that he would more likely used that process if it were a work of fiction.

In fact the knowledge of glass production in the LBA seems to indicate that it used pure forms of sand and not quartz for production:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5729/1756

Just to be clear, sandstone is composed mostly of quartz. Your typical sandstone will contain lots of quartz with smaller portions of feldspar, and other eroded and transported rock fragments. Some sandstone is 100% quartz (called quartzarenite).

[Vex]

Just to be clear, sandstone is composed mostly of quartz. Your typical sandstone will contain lots of quartz with smaller portions of feldspar, and other eroded and transported rock fragments. Some sandstone is 100% quartz (called quartzarenite).

Of course, but it requires a lot more production process than using purer forms of silica. I would think that even the quartzarenite would still take a large process including liquid separation to get it to the purity required to be as translucent glass.

[John Williams]

John W:

I think God can take care of Himself pretty well. But back to the OP. It is an interesting bulls eye, unless you believe in the ever expanding Palmyra Public Reading Library.

Actually, having it as a bullseye depends on Joseph's having known the history of glass as given in his time and going against that knowledge anyway. Thus, for this to work, it's the apologists who have to place Joseph in a big library.

Uncle Dale and Dan Vogel have shown that a lot of the "amazing bullseyes" in the BofM were actually in line with commonly held beliefs that were available in popular books and newspapers. No library necessary.

[Rommelator]

As Uncle Dale said in another thread, given the prevalence of Mound Builder myths and the availability of information about Indians and Central Americans widely available in the popular press (read: newspapers, not libraries), Joseph Smith would have had all the information necessary to write a tale like the Book of the Mormon.

Oh yes, the good old Mound builders argument.

Of course, one is forced to wonder how Joseph Smith nevertheless captured authentic ancient elements of ancient Mesoamerican and Near Eastern civilizations which the critics seem perfectly willing to just ignore.

*Cough* Brant Gardner in Second Witness *Cough*

But hey, I think you are right. Anybody, especially Professor Joseph Smith, could just pick up the local newspaper to get things like seasonal warfare right. That's a no brainer.

[Rommelator]

Uncle Dale and Dan Vogel have shown that a lot of the "amazing bullseyes" in the BofM were actually in line with commonly held beliefs that were available in popular books and newspapers. No library necessary.

Dan Vogel in Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon?

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=1&id=534

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...num=1&id=48

Enjoy!

[ttribe]

The pattern of BoM criticisms and historicity seems to be as follows: if an element described in the BoM does resemble so-called "common belief", then it's evidence that Joseph copied the concept; if an element doesn't resemble common belief, then it's proof that the BoM is not historically accurate. Another damned-if-we-do-damned-if-we-don't dilemma.

Sure is good God said he'd answer prayers about that book.