Book Of Mormon Bullseye?

[Sargon]

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.

What percentage of the "bulls-eyes" that we apologists list would you say have been debunked by Dale and Dan?

[John Williams]

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!

Somehow it would be more impressive if you had actually read Vogel instead of simply linking to FROB articles. It's fascinating how some bullseye-ists reject obvious and clear parallels to common folk beliefs of Joseph Smith's day in favor of the more tenuous sorts of bullseyes we see around here. The nice thing about Uncle Dale's collection is that it's just the primary sources, and you can read them and make your own judgments. A while back I summarized my objections to John Clark's list of amazing bullseyes in a thread here. I actually read the sources in question.

[John Williams]

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.

Well, no, that's not it at all, but it's a nicely constructed straw man nonetheless.

From an outsider's perspective, you have two sets of parallels:

To common and widely published beliefs of Joseph Smith's day and age.

Less-obvious ones to Old World ideas and names.

It's simply a question of determining which parallels are more compelling. We will probably disagree on that.

[Rommelator]

Somehow it would be more impressive if you had actually read Vogel instead of simply linking to FROB articles.

Somehow it would be more impressive if you had actually read Kevin Christensen's articles instead of side stepping the arguments like this.

It's fascinating how some bullseye-ists reject obvious and clear parallels to common folk beliefs of Joseph Smith's day in favor of the more tenuous sorts of bullseyes we see around here.

"Tenuous"? How is the presence of chiasmus and other hebraisms, say, in the Book of Mormon "tenuous"?

[John Williams]

What percentage of the "bulls-eyes" that we apologists list would you say have been debunked by Dale and Dan?

Depends on whose list you're talking about. For example, John Clark spoke of about a dozen or so bullseyes that have been pretty much dispensed with. Even Brant Gardner said he couldn't vouch for them. So that's not a bad chunk.

[Sargon]

A fuller analysis by John W on this topic can be read here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...c=21200&hl=

[Rommelator]

Less-obvious ones to Old World ideas and names.

And what about New World parallels?

Hint: Brant Gardner.

Are we to simply reject this research because, after all, the mound builders explains it all?

[John Williams]

Somehow it would be more impressive if you had actually read Kevin Christensen's articles instead of side stepping the arguments like this.

You can't sidestep an argument that isn't made, can you? Does posting a link constitute an argument?

"Tenuous"? How is the presence of chiasmus and other hebraisms, say, in the Book of Mormon "tenuous"?

That's pretty simple. "Chiasmus" is a common literary device that appears in many cultures at many time periods. It is not specifically a "hebraism."

[ttribe]

Well, no, that's not it at all, but it's a nicely constructed straw man nonetheless.

From an outsider's perspective, you have two sets of parallels:

To common and widely published beliefs of Joseph Smith's day and age.

Less-obvious ones to Old World ideas and names.

It's simply a question of determining which parallels are more compelling. We will probably disagree on that.

Since I was making an observation of a phenomenon, and not an argument, per se, I think your "straw-man" statement is rather misplaced. Nevertheless, just as you seem inclined to provide us with "food for thought" in all the ways we might be mistaken, perhaps you could consider my observation food for thought on a trap you might be stuck in...a never-ending, self-sustaining, loop of criticism...so to speak.

[John Williams]

And what about New World parallels?

Hint: Brant Gardner.

Are we to simply reject this research because, after all, the mound builders explains it all?

Nope. Still working my way through Brant's stuff. Generally, however, the Mesoamerica of the Book of Mormon is nothing at all like the Mesoamerica I studied (at BYU, no less). And in 20 plus years since then, nothing we are discovering about Mesoamerica points in the direction of the Book of Mormon.

Yeah, I know, you guys disagree.

[Rommelator]

You can't sidestep an argument that isn't made, can you? Does posting a link constitute an argument?

It sure can.

You gave favorable remarks for the works of Dan Vogel, to which I responded by citing sources that challenge his assertions.

You have side stepped the issue by falsely implying that I was not familiar with Dan's work (I own the book, BTW).

"Chiasmus" is a common literary device that appears in many cultures at many time periods. It is not specifically a "hebraism."

Actually, chiasmus is a hebraism. It is utilized mostly in Hebrew literature, as Welch demonstrated in his Chiasmus in Antiquity. For example, the presence of chiasmus in Matthew was used by Paul Gaechter in his book Die literarische Kunst im Matthaus-Evangelium to argue for the influence of heavy Hebrew thought patterns in Matthew. It was also used by Gaechter to argue for a Hebrew and not Greek background of Matthew's literary conventions. Gaechter wrote:

"The recognition of closed form leads to important conclusions. For one thing, the originator of closed forms was not a Greek but a Hebrew, for the arrangement of a literary (non-poetical, narrative) piece in this form can only be understood as coming from a Semitic sphere."

[thesometimesaint]

John W:

The production of fine clear glass is pretty specific knowledge set, usually reserved for artisans and fine craftsman. Not typically something a common man of the early 19th Century would know even with access to a good library. Or are we going to argue that JS was some type of Idiot Savant?

Of course all this is not PROOF, but I believe it is pretty good evidence.

[John Williams]

It sure can.You gave favorable remarks for the works of Dan Vogel, to which I responded by citing sources that challenge his assertions. You have side stepped the issue by falsely implying that I was not familiar with Dan's work (I own the book, BTW).

No such implication was intended But the substitution of links for arguments seems a rather lazy approach. Of course, I was guilty of that in summarizing Dale and Vogel. For argument's sake, you can take a look at the thread Sargon posted a link to (there, I'm being really lazy).

Actually, chiasmus is a hebraism. It is utilized mostly in Hebrew literature, as Welch demonstrated in his Chiasmus in Antiquity. For example, the presence of chiasmus in Matthew was used by Paul Gaechter in his book Die literarische Kunst im Matthaus-Evangelium to argue for the influence of heavy Hebrew thought patterns in Matthew. It was also used by Gaechter to argue for a Hebrew and not Greek background of Matthew's literary conventions. Gaechter wrote:"The recognition of closed form leads to important conclusions. For one thing, the originator of closed forms was not a Greek but a Hebrew, for the arrangement of a literary (non-poetical, narrative) piece in this form can only be understood as coming from a Semitic sphere."

Let's try and simplify the argument.Chiasmus appears in the Bible and other western literature.Chiasmus also appears in the Book of Mormon, which draws heavily on Biblical patterns and other western religious literature.Therefore, the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is evidence that it is authentically hebraic in origin.Does that make sense to you?

John W:The production of fine clear glass is pretty specific knowledge set, usually reserved for artisans and fine craftsman. Not typically something a common man of the early 19th Century would know even with access to a good library. Or are we going to argue that JS was some type of Idiot Savant?Of course all this is not PROOF, but I believe it is pretty good evidence.

Why would Joseph Smith have had to know how to make clear glass in order to write that someone else did? Can you please explain how this would make him either an idiot savant or someone with access to a large library?

[Vex]

So no one's going to argue the points I raised concerning this hmm?

I know some critic, some where has something to offer regarding this.

Edit: Posted minutes before John W

[John Williams]

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.

Interesting. I have nothing to say for or against your speculation. It seems to be of one piece with his idea that the earth would become a sea of glass, a giant urim and thummim. One would imagine he wasn't thinking of making one giant quartz stone out of the earth.

[Rommelator]

Chiasmus appears in the Bible and other western literature.

Chiasmus also appears in the Book of Mormon, which draws heavily on Biblical patterns and other western religious literature.

Therefore, the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is evidence that it is authentically hebraic in origin.

A straw man. The LDS argument goes like this:

1. Chiasmus is a well attested Hebraism in ancient Semitic literature such as the Hebrew Bible.

2. The Book of Mormon claims a common production culture of said Semitic literature (i.e. the Ancient Near East).

3. Chiasmus has been used to argue for a Semitic background for said texts.

4. Therefore, it could be argued that the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is evidence for a common production culture of said Semitic literature i.e. the Ancient Near East.

And...

5. A knowledge of chiasmus in the 19th century was not only restricted to primarily European scholars but also generally unknown in Antebellum America, making it unlikely that Joseph Smith could have known about chiasmus on his own. Link: http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=1&id=465

6. The argument that chiasmus in the Book of Mormon can be attributed to its textual dependency on the Bible not only begs the question but also is unlikely, because 1. many of the hebraisms in the Bible have been edited out in the English Bible and 2. chiasmus appear in the Book of Mormon in a higher frequency in portions of the Book of Mormon that do not depend upon the Bible (i.e. Alma 32, 36 and Mosiah 2- than in those that do. I know this because I have the entire Book of Mormon text reformatted according to parallelistic patterns as per Donald W. Parry in 2007 and have searched these sections.

And this isn't even talking about other Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon, like the construct state, if/and conditionals, cognate accusative, regular repetition, etc...

[thesometimesaint]

John W:

Other than using very high heat, pure sand and Soda Ash. I have no idea how to make fine quality glass. I have access to the Internets, and have a good sized personal library, plus I keep my public library card up to date.

While JS MAY have had access to a library, but there is no indications that he ever used it in the production of the BoM. You seem to be claiming that JS had specific knowledge(about making glass), which is unreasonable to assume that JS had the knowledge of.

So he either knew about making glass, a large assumption, or he is some type of Idiot Savant. One with fantastic splinter skills.

[Vex]

Interesting. I have nothing to say for or against your speculation. It seems to be of one piece with his idea that the earth would become a sea of glass, a giant urim and thummim. One would imagine he wasn't thinking of making one giant quartz stone out of the earth.

Interesting reference. Makes sense, but that would mean it's a literal burning of the earth to justify that. Better get some flame retardant materials.

[Rommelator]

To me the question is not whether or not Joseph Smith knew about glass production, but whether or not the critical opinion that glass is an "anachronism" is a valid argument.

Walter Martin, page 166 in his detestable Kingdom of the Cults for example, says that "the Jaredites enjoyed “glass” windows in the miraculous barges in which they crossed the ocean; and “steel” and a “compass” were known to Nephi despite the fact that neither had been invented, demonstrating once again that Joseph Smith was a poor student of history and Hebrew customs."

However, as has been demonstrated, glass production is attested in the Bronze Age. Therefore, "glass" in the Book of Mormon has, among things like barley, steel in the Old World, Hebrews writing in Egyptian, etc. fallen off the "anachronisms" list.

[Sargon]

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.

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

Sorry, but moundbuilder mythology doesn't account for very much.

It doesn't account for Old World geography (Nahom, Bountiful, etc..)

It doesn't account for The Exodus Motif (here)

It doesn't account for pre-exilic themes in the Book of Mormon such as Asherah and many others pointed out by Kevin Christensen.

It doesn't account for the parallels of King Benjamin's speech with ancient Israelite festivals.

It doesn't account for many other ANE parallels such as Jared's stones/ Noah's stone...and many more

It doesn't account for pseudepigraphal themes in the BoM.

It doesn't account for Mulek.

It doesn't account for how providing a Mesoamerican context makes some of the strange narratives make more sense.

It doesn't account for parallels to ancient warfare in the Book of Mormon.

It doesn't account for one single Hebraism which includes but is not limited to:

• Colophons
  
• Merismus
  
• Prophetic Perfect
  
• The Construct State
  
• Repetition of the Definite Article(â?theâ?)
  
• Cognate Accusative(â?dreamed a dreamâ?)
  
• Jesus born â??ATâ?? Jerusalem
  
• Alma 46:19, writing â??upon the rentâ? a Hebraism
  
• Hebrew writing in Egyptian Characters
  
• Antithetical Parallelism
  
• Epanalepsis
  
• And/If Conditional Sentence
  
• Chiasmus
  

I'd keep going, but you get my drift.

[Olavarria]

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.

Which begs the questian, if "Joseph's book" was inspired by these things why doesnt the BoM contain identifiable influences from them?

The BoM lacks Aztec names, but does gives people Hebrew and Egyptian names from the time period Nephi left Jerusalem.

I like Brant's list:

Geospatial convergences

Internal geography corresponds to a specific region in Mesoamerica

Book of Mormon has over 400 geographic references which are consistent in their interrelationships, both spatial and topological.

Sorensonâ??s correlation is best known. Poulsenâ??s is an important alternative using the same basic area, but resolving directional issues.

One set of references in Helaman may combine to point specifically to Teotihuac

[Sargon]

Hey great list! Gardner's list is bound to be better than anything I could come up with.