consiglieri Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 Let me begin by saying I have enormous respect for Professor Daniel C. Peterson, and that I appreciated the opportunity to view his powerful presentation on the Book of Mormon at Education Week presented last August.Having said that, I wanted to ask two questions regarding evidences he gave for the Book of Mormon:1. The name Alma--Professor Peterson claimed that if Joseph Smith knew the name Alma, it would almost surely have been as a woman's name, and then mentioned the relatively recent find of the Hebrew male name of Alma in ancient documents.On this board, I have heard it expressed that the name Alma was used for males at the time of Joseph Smith and in his vicinity.If this is so, should we stop using this as an evidence of the Book of Mormon?2. Iron as a decorative metal--Professor Peterson also mentioned the use of iron in the Book of Mormon for decorating buildings; something he said was actually done anciently.I started a thread on this and another poster mentioned that the use of wrought iron for decorative purposes has existed in North America from the 18th century onward.If this is so, should we not use this as an evidence for the Book of Mormon?_________________I put these two items in the form of a question because I do not know what response Professor Peterson (or others) may have to this. Perhaps there is a cogent response.If there is a such a response, I would be happy to hear it.All the Best!--Consiglieri
Calm Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 1. The name Alma--Professor Peterson claimed that if Joseph Smith knew the name Alma, it would almost surely have been as a woman's name, and then mentioned the relatively recent find of the Hebrew male name of Alma in ancient documents.On this board, I have heard it expressed that the name Alma was used for males at the time of Joseph Smith and in his vicinity.I have seen some examples of this, but don't know how widespread it was. It was apparently not widespread enough that this criticism was used against the BoM in the past though and this may be why DCP included it in the list.
smac97 Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 Let me begin by saying I have enormous respect for Professor Daniel C. Peterson, and that I appreciated the opportunity to view his powerful presentation on the Book of Mormon at Education Week presented last August.Having said that, I wanted to ask two questions regarding evidences he gave for the Book of Mormon:1. The name Alma--Professor Peterson claimed that if Joseph Smith knew the name Alma, it would almost surely have been as a woman's name, and then mentioned the relatively recent find of the Hebrew male name of Alma in ancient documents.On this board, I have heard it expressed that the name Alma was used for males at the time of Joseph Smith and in his vicinity.If this is so, should we stop using this as an evidence of the Book of Mormon?No. I think DCP's point is that Alma was a predominantly female name. I think he's probably right about that. Moreover, DCP's point is not so much that "Alma" can be a male name, but that it is an authentic, ancient semitic male name (see here).So I think it's still a good point to raise.2. Iron as a decorative metal--Professor Peterson also mentioned the use of iron in the Book of Mormon for decorating buildings; something he said was actually done anciently.I started a thread on this and another poster mentioned that the use of wrought iron for decorative purposes has existed in North America from the 18th century onward.If this is so, should we not use this as an evidence for the Book of Mormon?I don't follow. How is this a problem?-Smac
Daniel Peterson Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 Both items have been criticized, yet both items are authentically ancient.I have yet to see evidence that Alma was a common masculine name in Joseph Smith's environment, but it certainly fits Semitic antiquity in ways that critics have vocally doubted.
krose Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 I don't follow. How is this a problem?The problem is with the implication (at least the inference I drew from Consig's earlier post) that decorative iron was not a common feature in 19th century America.
Daniel Peterson Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 TThe problem is with the implication (at least the inference I drew from Consig's earlier post) that decorative iron was not a common feature in 19th century America.Here is the precise language of the speech, regarding iron: "In ancient Israel, although it seems odd to us, iron was a precious substance used for decoration. Iron is used in the same way in the Book of Mormon."Here is the endnote reference: "Reexploring, 133-134."This refers to John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992).Anybody who wants to examine that reference is welcome to do so. I don't have the book with me at the moment.
consiglieri Posted January 30, 2009 Author Posted January 30, 2009 Anybody who wants to examine that reference is welcome to do so. I don't have the book with me at the moment.Thanks for the reference. I will check it out when I get home.TTFN!--Consiglieri
T-Shirt Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 I have seen some examples of this, but don't know how widespread it was. It was apparently not widespread enough that this criticism was used against the BoM in the past though and this may be why DCP included it in the list.For what it is worth, a quick check, shows that the 1830 census lists nine Almas in the state of New York. Since this record only shows the name of heads of families, it is likely that most, if not all, of them were male. The 1840 census, which, also, only shows heads of families, lists seven Almas in the state of New York.In 1850, they started listing the names of everyone, this census shows, in New York state, 21 men named Alma and 598 women. The same census shows, for the entire United States, 181 men named Alma and 2052 women.Draw your own conclusion.Best,T-Shirt
The Dude Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 It's never enough for an apologist to just say "Alma was really used an ancient man's name." Or "Iron actually was a decorative metal among the ancients." These claims are nearly always followed up with misplaced rhetoric like "How could Joseph have known?" That is the format, usually.Nobody thinks Joseph "knew" these things, of course. Apologists believe he translated in ignorance. Critics think he wrote a book of fiction based on imagination and borrowings from the Bible and contemporary beliefs. It is good to keep in mind that hardly anybody thinks Joseph Smith did research.
e=mc2 Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 It's never enough for an apologist to just say "Alma was really used an ancient man's name." Or "Iron actually was a decorative metal among the ancients." These claims are nearly always followed up with misplaced rhetoric like "How could Joseph have known?" That is the format, usually.Nobody thinks Joseph "knew" these things, of course. Apologists believe he translated in ignorance. Critics think he wrote a book of fiction based on imagination and borrowings from the Bible and contemporary beliefs. It is good to keep in mind that hardly anybody thinks Joseph Smith did research.Agreed, and in some cases, it has been proven thatJoseph Smith could *not* have known some bullseyes. However, even if Alma was in Joseph Smith's day, THE question is, did he have access to it, and does this refute the proof that it really is an ancient Semitic name? It's like the name Nephi being a real Egyptian name anciently around 600 B.C. It might be mentioned elsewhere, but how on earth COULD Joseph have done all that research and used all his time doing so to find these things, and how did he know WHICH things to include, and which to exclude from the BofM?! We *KNOW* what Joseph was doing in his youth, and it was NOT, *NOT*, ABSOLUTELY NOT researching and reading! The critics accuse him of always treasure digging, running around all over the countrtside, farming, moving, and scrying, etc. After all, check out D. Michael Quinn's magnum opus on this and tell me WHEN Joseph did ANY reading whatsoever! GRIN!
Daniel Peterson Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 It's never enough for an apologist to just say "Alma was really used an ancient man's name." Or "Iron actually was a decorative metal among the ancients." These claims are nearly always followed up with misplaced rhetoric like "How could Joseph have known?" That is the format, usually.Alas, though, it wasn't "the format" in the speech of mine that is under discussion.Still, it's a logically sound argument structure. The fact that some critics find it tiresome doesn't demonstrate otherwise, doesn't justify its summary dismissal, and doesn't legitimate failure to engage it.
The Dude Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Alas, though, it wasn't "the format" in the speech of mine that is under discussion.You don't have to actually come out and say it, Daniel. With your magnificent mind powers, you probably had them mumbling it trance-like to themselves "how could Joseph have known"... "how could joseph have known"... But seriously, I would agree it is a logically sound argument if you are addressing it to someone who thinks Joseph might have "known" specified information about ancient people. If hardly anybody thinks he "knew" such things (not you, not me) then what is the point of it? The fact that some critics find it tiresome... doesn't legitimate failure to engage it.If you offer me an argument that is based on a bogus premise, then I engage it by identifying the bogus premise. See above.
Daniel Peterson Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 If you offer me an argument that is based on a bogus premise, then I engage it by identifying the bogus premise. See above.If you identify a bogus premise in a sound argument that, as a matter of fact, has solidly true premises, you commit an error.
The Dude Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 If you identify a bogus premise in a sound argument that, as a matter of fact, has solidly true premises, you commit an error.I have explained why I think it is a bogus premise, and you just say "No it's not."
Mike Reed Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Both items have been criticized, yet both items are authentically ancient.I have yet to see evidence that Alma was a common masculine name in Joseph Smith's environment, but it certainly fits Semitic antiquity in ways that critics have vocally doubted.Did a quick search on Familysearch.org using random surnames (that came from the top of my head):Results for: Alma Smith [refine search] [Print] Any Event, 1785 - 1825Exact Spelling: Off Matches: All Sources - 40 Ancestral File 1. Alma SMITH - Ancestral FileGender: M Marriage: 8 Jan 1789 Presbyterian Chk, Ballston Center, Saratoga, N Y Matches: Ancestral File - 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Census - 1880 US Census 2. Alma SMITH - 1880 United States Census / IllinoisMother Gender: Female Birth: <1796> NY 3. Alma SMITH - 1880 United States Census / VermontWife Gender: Female Birth: <1805> VT 4. Elmey D. SMITH - 1880 United States Census / New YorkSelf Gender: Female Birth: <1808> MA 5. Alma C. SMITH - 1880 United States Census / MinnesotaSelf Gender: Male Birth: <1814> VT 6. Alma C. SMITH - 1880 United States Census / New YorkWife Gender: Female Birth: <1818> NY 7. Alma E. L. SMITH - 1880 United States Census / IndianaSelf Gender: Male Birth: <1820> IN 8. Alma SMITH - 1880 United States Census / New YorkMotherL Gender: Female Birth: <1820> NY 9. Alma A. SMITH - 1880 United States Census / New YorkMother Gender: Female Birth: <1821> NY Matches: Census/1880 US Census - 8-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- International Genealogical Index - British Isles 10. Elma Smith - International Genealogical Index / BIGender: Male Birth: About 1796 Of, Blackheath, Worcester, England 11. Elma Smith - International Genealogical Index / BIGender: Male Birth: About 1796 Of, Blackheath, Worcester, England Matches: International Genealogical Index/British Isles - 2-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- International Genealogical Index - North America 12. Alma Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: About 1786 Sharon, Windsor, Vermont 13. ALMA SMITH - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Marriage: 08 JAN 1789 First Presbyterian Church At Ballston, Ballston Center, Saratoga, New York 14. Alma or Almira Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Female Birth: 20 FEB 1796 Leverett, Franklin, Massachusetts 15. Alma Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Female Birth: 20 FEB 1796 Of, Leverett, Franklin, Massachusetts 16. ALMA SMITH - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Female Birth: 20 FEB 1796 Leverett, Franklin, Massachusetts 17. Alma or Almira Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Female Birth: 20 FEB 1796 Leverett, Franklin, Massachusetts 18. Alma or Almira Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Female Birth: 20 FEB 1796 Leverett, Franklin, Massachusetts 19. Alma Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: <Female> Birth: 20 FEB 1796 Hadley, Hampshire, Massachusetts 20. Alma Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Female Birth: 20 FEB 1796 Of, Leverett, Franklin, Massachusetts 21. Alma Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: <Male> Birth: 20 FEB 1796 Leverett, Franklin, Massachusetts 22. Alma Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Female Birth: 20 FEB 1796 Leverett, Hampshire, Massachusetts 23. ALMA SMITH - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Christening: 27 MAY 1798 First Church Of Christ, Northampton, Hampshire, Massachusetts 24. Alma Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: About 1799 Danby, Rutland, Vermont 25. Alma Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 1799 Danby, Rutland, Vermont 26. Alma Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 30 NOV 1800 Shoreham, Addison, Vermont 27. ALMA DEBORAH SMITH - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Female Birth: 19 SEP 1803 Smithtown, Suffolk, New York 28. Alma Deborah Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Female Birth: 19 SEP 1803 Smithtown, Suffolk, New York 29. Alma Deborah Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Female Birth: 19 SEP 1803 Smithtown, Suffolk, New York 30. Alma Deborah Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Female Birth: 19 SEP 1803 Smithtown, Suffolk, New York 31. Alma Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Female Birth: About 1804 Of, Delanson, Schenectady, New York 32. Alma Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Female Birth: About 1804 Of, Delanson, Schenectady, New York 33. ALMAM SMITH - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Female Birth: 1806 Jericho, Nassau, New York 34. Alma Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Female Birth: About 1807 Of, , , Ohio 35. Alma Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Female Birth: About 1807 Of, , , Ohio 36. Alma Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Female Birth: About 1807 Of, , , Ohio Matches: International Genealogical Index/North America - over 25-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pedigree Resource File 37. Alma Smith - Pedigree Resource FileGender: F Birth/Christening: 20 Feb 1796 Leverett, Franklin, Massachusetts 38. Alma Smith - Pedigree Resource FileGender: F Birth/Christening: bet 1789 and 1816 39. Alma SMITH - Pedigree Resource FileGender: F Birth/Christening: abt 1821 40. Alma Smith - Pedigree Resource FileGender: F Marriage: 12 Aug 1813 Matches: Pedigree Resource File - 4 Then I tried Pratt:Results for: Alma Pratt [refine search] [Print] Any Event, 1785 - 1825Exact Spelling: Off Matches: All Sources - 9 International Genealogical Index - North America 1. Almus Pratt - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 22 SEP 1806 Saybrook, Middlesex, Connecticut 2. Almus Pratt - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 22 NOV 1806 Deep River, Middlesex, Connecticut 3. Almus Pratt - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 22 NOV 1806 Deep River, Middlesex, Connecticut 4. Almus Pratt - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: <Male> Birth: 22 SEP 1806 Of, Sandwich, De Kalb, Illinois 5. Almus Pratt - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 22 SEP 1806 Saybrook, Middlesex, Connecticut 6. Almus <PRATT> - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: <Male> Birth: 22 SEP 1806 Saybrook, Middlesex, Connecticut 7. Almus Pratt - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 22 SEP 1806 Of, Sandwich, De Kalb, Illinois 8. Alma M. Pratt - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: <Female> Birth: 1814 New Bedford, , , Connecticut 9. Alma M. Pratt - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Female Birth: 1814 New Bedford, , , Connecticut Matches: International Genealogical Index/North America - 9 Then I tried Cowdery Results for: Alma Cowdery [refine search] [Print] Any Event, 1785 - 1825Exact Spelling: Off Matches: All Sources - 4 International Genealogical Index - North America 1. Alma Cowdery - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 12 AUG 1805 Hartland, Hartford, Connecticut 2. Alma Cowdery - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 12 AUG 1805 Of, Hartland, Hartford, Connecticut 3. Alma <COWDERY JR.> - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: <Male> Birth: 12 AUG 1805 Hartland, Hartford, Connecticut Matches: International Genealogical Index/North America - 3-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pedigree Resource File 4. Alma Cowdery - Pedigree Resource FileGender: M Birth/Christening: 12 Aug 1805 Hartland, Hartford, Connecticut, USAMatches: Pedigree Resource File - 1 It seems pretty common to me.
Daniel Peterson Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 It seems pretty common to me.I counted thirteen male "Almas" for the four decades from 1785-1825, across the United States.That may indicate commonness, or it may not.If it was so common and familiar, though, I wonder why various anti-Mormons -- I first encountered the argument in an article published by John L. Smith, of Utah Missions, Inc. in the early 1980s -- have long claimed that Joseph Smith made a mistake by giving the name Alma to two males in his Book of Mormon.Anyway, the fact remains that Alma is demonstrably an ancient Semitic masculine personal name in the region from which the Lehites are claimed to have come.
Mike Reed Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 I counted thirteen male "Almas" for the four decades from 1785-1825, across the United States.That may indicate commonness, or it may not.That was my count too. But these thirteen are the results I got after only searching under 3 surnames (smith, pratt, cowdery).I wonder why various anti-Mormons -- I first encountered the argument in an article published by John L. Smith, of Utah Missions, Inc. in the early 1980s -- have long claimed that Joseph Smith made a mistake by giving the name Alma to two males in his Book of Mormon.They evidently jumped to conclusions before they did their homework.
why me Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 You don't have to actually come out and say it, Daniel. With your magnificent mind powers, you probably had them mumbling it trance-like to themselves "how could Joseph have known"... "how could joseph have known"... Lets look at JS the fraudster. It should be obvious that when one puts a name that is not so common as a male name and put it during the time to the book of mormon, a risk can always arise. Now it has already been established that Alma was far from common during the time of JS. I don't believe that the risk was worth it for a fraudster. Much better to be sure and choose a more knowing name. But then again, the book of mormon is full of odd sounding names for the 19th century. He just happened to strike it rich with Alma.
emeliza Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 So basically Alma wasn't that uncommon of a male name for the time period that Joseph lived in. Meaning, Joseph (or whomever wrote the BoM if it wasn't ancient) could have used the name due to the familiarity of his environment. This is true.However the argument is generally put that Alma wasn't an ancient male name, not that it wasn't a male name from Joseph's time period. Alma is one of the few names that are not in the Bible that are in the BoM. There is proof though that Alma was a name used during the time period of the Old Testament. So basically The Dude is right that if Joseph wrote the BoM (or whomever), he could have used Alma because it was familiar to him. However if Joseph (or whomever) didn't write the BoM, but it was an ancient translated document, the apologists are correct on having proof that Alma was a male name in ancient Israel as well.
The Dude Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Back to the OP1. The name Alma--Professor Peterson claimed that if Joseph Smith knew the name Alma, it would almost surely have been as a woman's name, and then mentioned the relatively recent find of the Hebrew male name of Alma in ancient documents.On this board, I have heard it expressed that the name Alma was used for males at the time of Joseph Smith and in his vicinity.If this is so, should we stop using this as an evidence of the Book of Mormon?You should stop using it as evidence until you can say it was a Mesoamerican name from ~173 BC. I think that, given the claims of Limited Geography Theory, it is very suspicious for "bona fide" ancient Hebrew names (male or female) to still be around after 400 years of assimilation into a well established Mesoamerican culture.
LifeOnaPlate Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 I counted thirteen male "Almas" for the four decades from 1785-1825, across the United States.That may indicate commonness, or it may not.If it was so common and familiar, though, I wonder why various anti-Mormons -- I first encountered the argument in an article published by John L. Smith, of Utah Missions, Inc. in the early 1980s -- have long claimed that Joseph Smith made a mistake by giving the name Alma to two males in his Book of Mormon.Anyway, the fact remains that Alma is demonstrably an ancient Semitic masculine personal name in the region from which the Lehites are claimed to have come."Alma is supposed to be a prophet of God and of Jewish ancestry in the Book of Mormon. In Hebrew Alma means a betrothed virgin maiden-hardly a fitting name for a man." Dr. Dr. Walter Martin, The Maze of Mormonism (Santa Ana, California: Vision House, 1978), 327.I wonder what the earliest complaint was. I thought I read an early critic ridiculing the name.Back to the OPYou should stop using it as evidence until you can say it was a Mesoamerican name from ~173 BC.We already have that evidence in the Book of Mormon of course.
Calm Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 They evidently jumped to conclusions before they did their homework.That "homework" needed to be done before someone would know that "Alma" was a "common" name for males would seem to indicate that "Alma" wasn't a "common" name for males even if it was present.
Bill Hamblin Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Back to the OPYou should stop using it as evidence until you can say it was a Mesoamerican name from ~173 BC. I think that, given the claims of Limited Geography Theory, it is very suspicious for "bona fide" ancient Hebrew names (male or female) to still be around after 400 years of assimilation into a well established Mesoamerican culture.You mean, I suspect, that this is just like the fact that we shouldn't expect to find biblical names among Jews in New York who have assimilated into American culture, right?
russianwolfe Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 The problem of names in the Book of Mormon is far more than this discussion is making out.1. Were the names used anciently.When I first read the Book of Mormon in 1970, I was troubled by the name Sam. That was familiar and didn't sound ancient at all. But when I was on my mission, I read Since Cumorah by Hugh Nibley (my first exposure) and relished the thought that a common sounding name was in fact a valid ancient Egyptian name. Not to even whisper about Nephi. That was a strange one. But then I love strange names. I have read John Carter, Warlord of Mars, series as well as The Egyptian. But then I could never get past the names in The Brothers Karamazov; struggling to pronounce them was just too foreign.2. Were the names in the Book of Mormon used properly.This is a very important point. If I write a book about Tibet (with a nod to Br. Nibliey) and I make up a bunch of names, the names have to be used correctly as well as being ancient. For instance, in the Book of Mormon we have a name that is common in it: Nephi. And then there is Nephiha. If I recall correctly, Nephiha was the son of Nephi. Here is a clear case that if Joseph Smith was just making it up, he should have gotten it wrong. After all his name was Joseph Smith, Jr.!! But someone pointed out that adding -ha to a name was not only an indication, anciently, of familial relationships but was done in the priestly caste. Can we score a double bulleye for these names?MarvinPS. I am only writing this from memory. If anyone can give me the reference or at least where to look for these things I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Mike Reed Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 That "homework" needed to be done before someone would know that "Alma" was a "common" name for males would seem to indicate that "Alma" wasn't a "common" name for males even if it was present.I don't know. According to LOaP's quote and Dan's memory, this criticism may have surfaced by anti-Mormons during the mid to late 1970s--a time far removed from the late 1820s when the BoM was produced/translated. Besides... the criticism of anti-Mormons (like Martin) has been focused on the name's meaning in ancient Hebrew, and therefore says nothing about what they believed to be common American name in Smith's (or even Martin's) day.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.