Viable Nephite colonies

[erichard]

Which final battle? The one Zelph fought in? What actual data are you using to make this assumption?

Hi thews,

I am speaking of the final battle of the Nephites and Lamanites recorded in Mormon 6.

Here is a link so you can read it if you want. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/morm/6

Notice verse 6:

6 And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, SAVE IT WERE THESE FEW PLATES which I gave unto my son Moroni.

The few plates which were given to Moroni were the plates which were eventually given to the Prophet Joseph. They contained an abridgment, made by Mormon, of records that he had.

Since I believe the hill Cumorah spoken of in Mormon 6 was not the same hill where Joseph was led to find the plates, then I can believe that Moroni walked a long ways to get them there. After walking so far, he could surely continue walking to where the Mic'maq lived.

Richard

[erichard]

...Speaking of Heber's experience in England, Joseph explained:

"some of the old Prophets traveled and dedicated that land, and their blessing fell upon you."

(Church History in the Fulness of Times, p. 176).

Old prophets. Who traveled. And dedicated land or lands. Does that ring a bell for anyone?

In earlier LDS teaching, that was said to be one of Moroni's roles.

...

Hi again,

I do vaguely remember this, now that you quote it. And I have heard that Moroni is said to have dedicated the future Manti temple spot, and also (I think) the John Koyle Dream Mine near Salem, Utah.

But surely other prophets did the same.

When I read the quote you gave my first thought was the Glastonbury and other legends that Joseph of Arimathaea and other early saints and Apostles came to Ireland and England soon after the crucifixion. Those legends are very believable to me. And also the earlier legend that Jeremiah came to Ireland with the princess Tea Tephi. These would be the prophets that I would tend to think of when I read that quote.

Richard

[notHagoth7]

The first link provided...indication of a type of shorthand being invented and practiced by the Greeks, long before Hagoth or Tiro. That would argue against the Hagoth hypothesis.

Gary, how does a Greek form of shorthand predating Hagoth and Tiro somehow negate the system which Tiro introduced into Roman culture?

History is clear about Tiro's role. He existed. He surfaced in Rome in 54 BC. He introduced the Tironian system. And that system expanded over time. That can be (and is) true, independent of what happened in Greece and with Greek.

Are you claiming that the Greek testimony somehow outweighs Roman history, northern European evidence, Cicero's letters, and much more?

Keep in mind that Plutarch's testimony for 63 BC, which you alluded to, actually testifies to earlier, pre-Tironian attempts at such things.

So it's not an either/or. The frosty side and the shredded wheat side can co-exist peacefully.

In that context, can you see how the Greek testimony doesn't do what you thought it did?

One of the things you speculated earlier was that most Nephites were not familiar with the written shorthand used in the Book of Mormon, explaining why that form of writing died out in the Americas.

Yes. It was (and is) initial speculation. What happened in the Americas isn't something that I've given a great deal of thought. So it is nothing more than initial speculation - pondering out loud - in response to the concern you and Arc had about the lack of evidence for re-formed Egyptian in the Americas. We've located a candidate script now in Mi'kmaq.

As to how common a knowledge of shorthand would have been in Nephite society, I'll admit I don't know. A Nephite passage or two might be suggestive of one conclusion or the other. But it all makes me think of modern shorthand. How many people, outside of court stenographers and high-level secretaries, were actually proficient at that? 1 in 1,000? 1 in 10,000? The Nephites themselves told us they had at least one other form of writing, so we have no reason to believe that all people could write, or even that those who could would also know a form of shorthand.

Mi'kmaq children knew some characters. Apparently the priest gathered the rest from adults. How much of the script the children knew, we don't know. And I don't know how widespread the knowledge was among Mi'kmaq adults. I think Bob's theory may have some merit here though - that Moroni worked his way to the northeastern seaboard of North America.

Either the Mi'kmaq are Nephite descendants, among which a subset of them preserved such a script, or someone like Moroni taught them the script for a distinct purpose or two. One of those purposes: perhaps to intentionally leave a breadcrumb or two along the trail. ?? In other words, that may have been done prophetically - to help the Book of Mormon accomplish its stated purpose of bringing you to a knowledge of your fathers.

Do with that what you may.

So the Nephites sometimes used a form of shorthand. And Tironian also happens to be a form of shorthand - which Arc and Short claim to resemble the Nephite characters in Anthon's manuscript. And Mi'kmaq compares favorably both with the Nephite characters and with Egyptian.

If we now have evidence of children playfully using the script, then that part of your hypothesis should be replaced. For children to use it, the script must have been relatively easy to use and that much more likely to continue in use among remaining peoples in America.

You're assuming their knowledge was extensive. And that it was representative of knowledge throughout all of Mi'kmaq culture.

For example, my little boy knows a few motions in sign language. As do a few of the neighbor's kids. But their vocabulary in that is quite limited. One would be quite mistaken to infer from observing him that he is fluent in that form of communication, or that society at large is fluent.

If the Mi'kmaq children had an extensive knowledge of that script, it would bolster your assertion above. But keep in mind that after seeing what a few children were doing with a couple of symbols, the priest had to turn elsewhere to learn more. Implication: the children's understanding isn't near as extensive as you're suggesting above. Was their limited knowledge indicative of what other Mi'kmaq children knew? We don't know. If you believe we have an answer to that, I'll refer you back to the sign language issue.

[cont'd]

[notHagoth7]

But surely other prophets did the same.

No argument here.

When I read the quote you gave my first thought was the Glastonbury and other legends that Joseph of Arimathaea and other early saints and Apostles came to Ireland and England soon after the crucifixion. Those legends are very believable to me.

That works.

And also the earlier legend that Jeremiah came to Ireland with the princess Tea Tephi. These would be the prophets that I would tend to think of when I read that quote.

I don't claim to know what came of Jeremiah.

Unfortunately, however, the Tea Tephi issue appears to be a fabrication. Invented in 1861. In an attempt to create an Irish nationalistic theology that competed with the narrative in the Nephite record.

1) Tea Tephi (Nephi?)

2) Tea Tephi - daughter of Zedekiah (a fractal of Mulek, a son of Zedekiah)

3) And reportedly, there is no evidence in Irish accounts of a Tea Tephi.

Great story. But if such a princess existed, no one has yet surfaced with evidence that she existed - other than an 1861 book.

[notHagoth7]

To my eyes, the Mi'kmaq script supports your hypothesis. I know you don't need my approval, but I find this to be the most meaningfully supportive evidence that you have presented.

OK.

I know you dismiss the matters of probability, but they are important. Adding extra necessary conditions to a hypothesis reduces the likelihood that it will eventually prove out.

Can you cite a published statistician who asserts that probability metrics are helpful in illuminating the past?

Because I have yet to come across a historian who makes such an assertion.

When a hypothesis predicts a finding, which only later is obtained, our confidence in the hypothesis increases.

I would suggest using Nephite prophecies as the predictive hypotheses. And comparing those to the cultural findings we're discussing here.

I have a favor to ask, being a newcomer here: how do I quickly navigate to a specific page in this thread? I want to go back and read those other links about the Mi'kmaq.

The quickest way would probably be to use the search feature in the upper right corner.

If the Mi'kmaq script proved to have evolved from Egyptian, I would see that as evidence favoring your hypothesis. How about you? If the Mi'kmaq script were found to be unrelated to Egyptian, would you consider it evidence against your hypothesis?

No. I would consider such an outcome as bringing us back to a lack of evidence from the American continent.

It wouldn't remove the Nephite prophecies - including the promise that Lehi's descendants would be spread throughout the world.

Or any of the other evidence.

Oh, you mentioned another cognitive bias: confirmation bias. I agree that it, too, is relevant here. For the record: it affects my thinking and judgment just as much as it does yours.

I'm not suggesting otherwise.

According to the research on confirmation bias, the more effective way to reduce it is to define and then look for evidence that one's pet idea is wrong.

Which is why a discussion like this is of value. It can test and demonstrate how rigorous and sturdy a framework is.

I'm curious: what sort of evidence would, in your mind, discredit your hypothesis?

In the spectrum of hope>belief>faith>knowledge, I'm approaching certainty. Which is why I'm now willing to discuss it extensively.

What is your method for avoiding confirmation bias?

Discussions like this help.

Also, a writing class or two taught me the value of stepping into the shoes of the opposition, and trying to anticipate and address valid objections along the way. So I try to explore both sides of the argument - and in the process, I push potentially corroborating evidence that I consider too weak to the side. If it doesn't seem robust, I don't want to add it to the quiver. Of course some here are of the opinion that my quiver is chock full of Nerf arrows. At least on that, we'd be in agreement that my intent isn't to harm anyone.

By the way, I don't doubt your testimony. I don't think I even hinted at that and I apologize if I came across as attacking the sincerity of your religious convictions. What I suspected--apparently in error--was that even you found the Nephites-in-Europe notion to be a long shot.

No.

If you are convinced that it probably happened, I'm confident that you rank it well below your conviction about LDS theology, the Book of Mormon, and the existence of God.

Actually, no.

I have greater faith in God and the Book of Mormon than in LDS theology.

This study is an outgrowth of the first two.

The way you write, those deeper forms of belief seem to be very close to the center of your being.

While such things are at my core, I understate my confidence in the Nephite premise here for key reasons.

1) It's not LDS doctrine

2) And for those who doubt mormon claims, and/or are outside the faith, I'd rather understate my confidence in such things. It allows people to to examine the evidence without the distraction/irritation of pulpit-pounding assertions. I don't want my personal confidence in this issue to distract people from exploring the prophetic message of the Nephite record, or the corroborating evidence from the other side of the Atlantic puddle.

I was open-minded coming into my study of such things. So I want to allow people the same latitude.

[notHagoth7]

What is your method for avoiding confirmation bias?

I've been thinking about this, and and would like to expand on it a bit more.

While running a few errands, I was thinking back through some of the thought processes, research, and approaches over the last few years.

And another part of the answer is:

Triangulation. Using multiple sources to look at the same thing from various perspectives. Here are three types of triangulation I use.

1) Various disciplines. For example, I'll examine something from the historical record. And then I'll examine it from the archaeological record. And then I'll examine it from the linguistic record. etc.

2) Various cultures. Another example of triangulation is that I'll compare the Germanic testimony, against the Roman testimony, and, where relevant, against the Celtic testimony. That way I'm surveying the perspectives of two or three different peoples on the same cultural events - which increases my assurance that my understanding is grounded, fair, and balanced.

3) Various modern experts. One other form of triangulation I use, as a check and balance, is the testimony of modern experts. In other words, I don't just read an ancient account, jump to a conclusion, and run to it. But I'll weigh what I'm reading, against my impressions of that reading, which I weigh against modern interpretations on that reading.

I use those three avenues of triangulation in concert, so its something of triangulation nested within triangulation.

So there are a number of checks and balances I've attempted to apply fairly.

Such an approach, provides me a greater sense of reliability that it's a grounded approach, and a well-marked path.

And it is intentionally documented with numerous references so that those who want to retrace those steps can do so at their own pace.

[notHagoth7]

When Cultures Collide: Aesir & Vanir

Early in the thread, I mentioned I wanted to get to the issue of the Aesir and the Vanir.

I'll probably only touch on it briefly here - but it could be an extensive thread of its own.

Nordic accounts describe the clash of two groups of "gods". Aesir (Odin, Thor, etc.) and Vanir.

The Aesir were associated with a hierarchial warrior class.

The Vanir were associated with the ocean, wisdom, fertility, and agriculture.

I've demonstrated in other research (not published yet) that Odin was a flesh-and-blood chieftain, who lived in the early first century AD.

By my assessment, the one-eyed Odin is the one-eyed Flavus. The pro-Roman brother of the chieftain Arminius.

Arminius defeated three Roman legions in 9 AD, and thereby reversed Rome's attempted expansion into Germania. He thereby essentially secured Germania's independence from Rome. (Although Rome exerted considerable external pressure on the region.) A few years ago, my brother and I wrote a screenplay about Arminius' role in history.

But back to the Vanir.

Most ethnologists have acknowledged that the clash between the Aesir and the Vanir represents a historical clash between two cultures.

The question is, where did the two cultures come from?

The Odin research offers a suggestion for the Aesir - a discussion of which goes beyond the tangent of this discussion.

But as the Vanir are associated with the Ocean, and with seafaring, they are our most likely candidates to correspond to the Shield's origin account, and to the Lombard origin account(s).

So the Vanir represent a people skilled in agriculture and seafaring...who are nonetheless sufficiently skilled at war to force the Aesir into a compromise.

And furthermore, experts have suggested that the Vanir were of some origin other than IndoEuropean. (Simek)

Add those up, and the Vanir are the best candidates for the people through which the non-IndoEuropean vocabulary arrived into the Germanic languages. In other words the seafaring Vanir, and the seafaring Shield, and the seafaring proto-Lombards fit like puzzle pieces. They are different facets of the same gem.

1. The Lombard testimony from Italy.

2. And the Shield testimony from Anglo-Scandinavian history and regnal lists.

3. And the Vanir testimony from Nordic mythology.

They all attest to an influx of seafaring people who were of some origin other than IndoEuropean.

Who surfaced in the 1st century BC, and clashed with Scandinavian cultures shortly afterward.

In a region that bears evidence of Semitic influence.

Who are these people? And where did they come from?

My answer: Hagoth's exodus, from across the sea, on the other side of the whale path, from Nephite central (Bountiful/Jershon).

[notHagoth7]

Weights and Measures

The Book of Alma provides us a glimpse of how Nephites measured value.

It's covered in further depth in one of the last chapters in Nephites in Europe (starting w/page 231).

I'm only going to deal with the silver measures here.

Nephite measures were based largely on a measure of grain/silver which they called the "senum".

Per Alma 11, there are measures smaller and larger than a senum.

But each measure is half the size of the next largest.

For example, two leah make a shiblum.

And two shiblum make a shiblon.

Two shiblon make a senum.

Two senum make an amnor.

Two amnor make an ezrom.

And ALL of them combine to make an onti.

So we're basically talking about nesting measures here.

Is there a cultural match for such measures?

Only one that I can think of.

It comes from Northern Europe.

England specifically.

Here's how that works:

Gill (now archaic). Cup. Pint. Quart. Pottle (i.e. "bottle"). Gallon. Bucket.

A nesting system. Each is twice the value of its former.

For those of you who already believe Joseph was a prophet,

what's your take on the Nephite measuring system aligning with that in northern Europe?

The Roman measuring system doesn't align with this approach.

So why would the outskirts of Europe have a measuring system of its own?

Answer: Germanic seafaring peoples.

With the retreat of Roman troops from Britain in the 400's AD, Britons enticed warriors from the Elbe region to come help defend them, in exchange for promises of reward. But after those peoples won several battles for them, the Britons refused to keep their promise. And the newcomers, who had put their lives on the line for the Britons, declared their right to rule forfeit. Within a few generation of that, waves of immigrants changed Briton into England (Angle-land). Our measuring system thus likely traces to the fall of Rome, when Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Lombards, and Frisians who carved out England as an inheritance of their own. They brought their system of measures with them.

Since then, that system has been rapidly supplanted by the metric system.

America is one of the few places which still uses the old English system.

So the next time you fill your car with gallons of gas, or grab a gallon of milk, you're using English measures. Elven measures. Nephite measures.

Thoughts?

[notHagoth7]

Apologies to those who have tried to access some of the Nephite content - we apparently had something of a website meltdown over the weekend.

I hope to have the core part of that resolved by tomorrow. Thanks for your patience.

For those of you baking Christmas cookies, any comments on Weights and Measures?

[Gary@rics]

Can you cite a published statistician who asserts that probability metrics are helpful in illuminating the past?

Because I have yet to come across a historian who makes such an assertion.

Probability metrics are often used in illuminating the past. For example, a criminal court might consider the probability of a DNA sample coming from someone other than the accused. Are you saying that historians don't consider likelihood, probability, or plausibility? We might just be at an impasse, then. I weigh these and many other things with a consideration of what seems most probable, in shades of gray. If that is too indeterminate for you, it will limit the range of our discussion.

In the spectrum of hope>belief>faith>knowledge, I'm approaching certainty. Which is why I'm now willing to discuss it extensively.

To see if I'm interpreting you correctly, let me paraphrase: "I am convinced that Nephites came to northeastern Europe; no earthly evidence could convince me otherwise." Is that what you're saying?

Discussions like this help.

Agreed.

At least on that, we'd be in agreement that my intent isn't to harm anyone.

I agree that your intent isn't to inflict harm. I appreciate that about you. Sometimes in verbal disagreements, people seem to aim at humiliating or insulting each other. It doesn't seem useful to me. I like your approach much better.

I have greater faith in God and the Book of Mormon than in LDS theology.

This study is an outgrowth of the first two.

You didn't quite address my point. I was speculating that you hold the above three--including LDS theology--with higher conviction than you have for the hypothesis that Nephite's journeyed to Europe. I'm curious of the order (descending) of conviction you hold.

A: God, Book of Mormon, LDS theology, Nephites in Europe

or

B: God, Book of Mormon, Nephites in Europe, LDS theology.

You know, I think that's a loaded question: either answer could be construed negatively. I am just surprised that you are that thoroughly convinced of your hypothesis. I personally think Stout makes a compelling argument that Joseph Smith fibbed in explaining the Book of Mormon origins and creation. Although Stout makes a lot of sense to me, I don't have a religious-like conviction that he is right.

Gary@rics

[Gary@rics]

[Responding to the matter of how best to manage confirmation bias.]

Triangulation. Using multiple sources to look at the same thing from various perspectives. Here are three types of triangulation I use.

1) Various disciplines. For example, I'll examine something from the historical record. And then I'll examine it from the archaeological record. And then I'll examine it from the linguistic record. etc.

2) Various cultures. Another example of triangulation is that I'll compare the Germanic testimony, against the Roman testimony, and, where relevant, against the Celtic testimony. That way I'm surveying the perspectives of two or three different peoples on the same cultural events - which increases my assurance that my understanding is grounded, fair, and balanced.

3) Various modern experts. One other form of triangulation I use, as a check and balance, is the testimony of modern experts. In other words, I don't just read an ancient account, jump to a conclusion, and run to it. But I'll weigh what I'm reading, against my impressions of that reading, which I weigh against modern interpretations on that reading.

I use those three avenues of triangulation in concert, so its something of triangulation nested within triangulation.

So there are a number of checks and balances I've attempted to apply fairly.

Such an approach, provides me a greater sense of reliability that it's a grounded approach, and a well-marked path.

And it is intentionally documented with numerous references so that those who want to retrace those steps can do so at their own pace.

I think those are all great ways of managing confirmation bias. But wouldn't you have to be open to the possibility of being wrong in order for these to illuminate an error? If not, then these approaches are only a method of data sifting, searching for and grasping anything that confirms the pet hypothesis.

Gary@rics

[notHagoth7]

Probability metrics are often used in illuminating the past. For example, a criminal court might consider the probability of a DNA sample coming from someone other than the accused. Are you saying that historians don't consider likelihood, probability, or plausibility?

Ah. Thank you for the context. I concede the point. That does make sense.

I weigh these and many other things with a consideration of what seems most probable, in shades of gray.

Likewise.

To see if I'm interpreting you correctly, let me paraphrase: "I am convinced that Nephites came to northeastern Europe; no earthly evidence could convince me otherwise." Is that what you're saying?

Not quite. In the spectrum from doubt to certainty:

I am certain that God lives.

I am certain that Joseph was a prophet of God, and am convinced that he was essentially a good man.

I am convinced that the Book of Mormon (along with other scriptures) is the word of God.

I have faith in the prophecies we have received through Joseph in the D&C and in the Book of Mormon, relating to the latter-day descendants of Lehi that were to be fulfilled through his children (Nephi, Joseph, Jacob, etc.).

HOW those prophecies were/are to be fulfilled, however, has not yet been specifically outlined by Joseph, or by the heirs to his office.

I am convinced that the evidence presented here and elsewhere presents the best explanation for that fulfillment.

I am open, however, to the possibility of there being a more accurate (or more reasonable) explanation that I haven't yet considered.

I'm open to that, whether such an explanation comes from someone following this discussion (either in or out of the mormon faith), or from a prophet (present or future).

I appreciate that about you.

Thank you.

Likewise. Seriously.

You didn't quite address my point. I was speculating that you hold the above three--including LDS theology--with higher conviction than you have for the hypothesis that Nephite's journeyed to Europe.

Currently: God, Book of Mormon, Nephites in Europe, LDS theology.

That's probably because I've spent very little time studying LDS theology.

If it was something my reading and thought had been more focused on over the years, it would very likely rank higher.

Some day it might.

You know, I think that's a loaded question: either answer could be construed negatively. I am just surprised that you are that thoroughly convinced of your hypothesis.

I've made it clear in this thread that I'm open to other explanations that explain the evidence. And I mean that.

But UNTIL (or unless) I find something better, I am convinced this is the best explanation. Is there anything that seems out of place with such an approach?

I personally think Stout makes a compelling argument that Joseph Smith fibbed in explaining the Book of Mormon origins and creation.

I certainly can't blame you for thinking that. He presents an interesting case.

Which makes me thin...I'd actually be interested in his response to the other side of the coin.

He doesn't, however, address the fact that Joseph and Hyrum were willing to die for that Book.

Nor does he consider the even weightier matter, presented by Elder Holland, that they drew solace from that record as they awaited their death.

That reality, I believe, is something that archaeologist, linguists, and historians could wear their lives out trying to match, and would fall quite short.

Although Stout makes a lot of sense to me, I don't have a religious-like conviction that he is right.

I can see how he does make sense - within a limited sphere of evidence. Hopefully, the Mi'kmaq are of some initial help there.

For me, since I do have a religious-like conviction of the truth of the Nephite record, it makes Stout's argument interesting, and has provided an onramp to an intriguing tangent of European exploration (Tiro/Cicero), but the other things I already know about Joseph help me interpret Stout's evidence differently.

I come at the Joseph Smith question from four main directions:

1) prayer (through which I've gained a conviction of the Nephite record being true)

2) scripture study (including Joseph's center-stage role in Bible prophecy - per a current thread)

3) his own history, & the eyewitness testimony of those who knew him (including my forefathers)

4) and the goodness I see come out of the faith, and out of the people associated with that faith

Even without #1, I could conclude from the other three that he was a good man.

And also without #1, I would have considerable cause to believe/hope that he was called by God.

[notHagoth7]

I think those are all great ways of managing confirmation bias.

OK.

But wouldn't you have to be open to the possibility of being wrong in order for these to illuminate an error?

Yes. The issue of being open minded...

If memory serves, with both you and Arc, I've demonstrated the willingness and ability to discard or modify views when presented with a better sub-argument. Does that suggest how I've also attempted to approach the research itself?

If not, then these approaches are only a method of data sifting, searching for and grasping anything that confirms the pet hypothesis.

If you feel I've been dishonest in my data gathering in any way, feel free to point out where I have erred.

If you feel I have fudged in my analysis of the European data, likewise, I'd value your input.

It started out as an attempt to test my brother's hypothesis. And based on what I found, it grew from there.

Since then, it has, for my purposes, advanced beyond a hypotheses into a full-blown framework/paradigm.

Since I earned part of my way through college doing family history research (genealogy), I'll cite the following source - since the approach needed for family-history research happens to parallel much of what we've been discussing here:

A quote from Elizabeth Mills' "Evidence - Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian"

"We cannot - a generation, a century, a half-millennium later - prove a relationship beyond any shadow of doubt.

Every kinship, every fact, every identity we establish is simply a decision we base upon the evidence we have accumulated.

Our challenge is to accumulate the best evidence possible and to train ourselves to analyze and interpret the evidence in the most perceptive manner possible."

That is what I have genuinely attempted to do with this topic. If people doubt that, or prefer not to grant the benefit of the doubt in the area of genuine intent, I'd like to discuss it. (However, I would much prefer to discuss the message of the Nephite record itself, or the implications of Nephite ancestry, or, if needed, the evidence for that.)

Mills offers guidelines for analyzing family history evidence that also have relevance to this discussion:

Rule #1: Direct evidence is easier to understand, but indirect evidence can carry equal weight.

Rule #2: Reliable genealogical conclusions are based on the weight - not the quantity - of the evidence found.

Rule #3: Evidence should be drawn from a variety of independently-created sources

(She has ten additional rules which I won't burden the thread with.)

So the question is, have I been fair?

Have I amassed a lot of weak, flimsy evidence?

Or have I been sufficiently fair both with the data gathering, and with the analysis?

Is there substance both to the various data points, and to the combined weight of that data?

If you're conducting research on a 19th-century family, and they leave a parish, you conduct an exhaustive search to locate them.

Can you suggest a better approach in response to a Nephite exodus?

As I've said more than once in this thread - if someone has a better approach, or a better explanation to reconcile the evidence (from both within and without the Nephite record), I'm listening. And I mean that.

That doesn't mean I have reason to doubt this framework. It simply means I'm less interested in being right than in aligning with what is.

But hopefully, we've talked more than enough about me and my approach. It is one of my least favorite topics - but I'm willing to go there since that's where some of the concern is concentrated. Are these responses helping you at all?

Again, I value your feedback and fairness in this discussion.

[Daniel Peterson]

What we're discussing here is burden of proof. When it's not been met that means the probability of the truth of the claim is low.

As a blanket statement, this conclusion cannot be justified.

Daniel has acknowledged that Mormonism has not met the burden of proof required to legitimize its truth claims,

That is, I'm authorized to say, not even remotely Daniel's position, and he has said nothing of the kind.

therefore, I don't think it should be allowed to make a claim of truth when pitching their wares to the public

Good grief.

anymore than, say, the representatives of the Enron corporation should be allowed to make unfounded claims to the public. For some reason, even though money is likewise involved in both cases (i.e. 10% of one's income) religion gets a bye and the corporate leaders of Enron go to prison. Why is that?

Sigh.

For example, did Joseph Smith talk with God? If he can't meet the burden of proof to establish such a fantastic claim then we objectively determine that he probably did not talk with God.

This is logically fallacious. The conclusion is not entailed by the premise.

P.S. My attention was just drawn to a discussion of this thread among Jeff's fans (I'd never looked at that message board before). LOL. It seems I'm quite the idiot. (I tend to overestimate my critics and their ability to accurately track an argument or understand a position. It's the triumph of hope over experience, I suppose.) Yawn.

.

[USU78]

Are you sorry you asked?

Who, me?

Naw. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

[notHagoth7]

Who, me?

Naw. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

You're quite welcome.

[notHagoth7]

Shameless plug:

For those familiar with some of my online content, last night I decided to parse the secular stuff from the LDS content.

(That will likely better serve the different needs of the two different audiences.)

So if any are interested, I launched a new site this morning.

Some of the things I said I'd make available in coming weeks (fx., Odin's Toga, and Elves in History DVD preorder capability) will end up on that new site, instead of on Candlestick. And I'll likely be removing the secular content from Candlestick in the next week or so to allow Candlestick to revert to its original focus. (In case a few of you end up wondering what happened to some of the previous links.)

{/end of shameless plug]

[ERayR]

I have picked up hints that Chritopher Columbus had Lombard connections. Is there any indications that he may have had access to maps etc. and was perhaps retracing ancestrial migrations when he initiated his voyages? He seemed to have something that interested Queen Isabelle.

[notHagoth7]

I have picked up hints that Christopher Columbus had Lombard connections. Is there any indications that he may have had access to maps etc. and was perhaps retracing ancestral migrations when he initiated his voyages?

Yes - if he was born in Genoa, as most believe, there's a good likelihood of some Lombard ancestry. There's a chapter on such things here. Starting on page 112.

Before his discovery, he and his brother were cartographers. And several early maps of the Atlantic show lands to the west of the British Isles. Prior to reaching America, in his travels in the North Atlantic and elsewhere, and in discussions at ports of call with other sailors and cartographers, he likely learned about Germanic and Celtic accounts of lands (and perhaps homelands) west of European possessions.

The chapter referenced above links Lombard origin accounts, Viking discoveries, and Christopher's likely heritage and travels.

He seemed to have something that interested Queen Isabelle.

He had a number of books and manuscripts - and as a cartographer, certainly maps. He owned Greek, Roman, and Muslim books that touched on geography. He also cited Christian, Muslim, and Jewish sages. And his interpretation of numerous Bible passages likely intrigued the queen.

Some might enjoy a read of his Book of Prophecies.

[notHagoth7]

In the desire to start porting some of these things over to a broader audience, I'm seeking translation volunteers.

Are there any people here proficient in foreign languages who are willing to donate translation work on a chapter or two?

I'm initially interested in German, Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Russian, and the Scandinavian languages. Please drop me an IM if you're capable/willing to help a bit. Thx!

(There's free open-source software available to help streamline the effort.)

[Gary@rics]

Gary, how does a Greek form of shorthand predating Hagoth and Tiro somehow negate the system which Tiro introduced into Roman culture?

History is clear about Tiro's role. He existed. He surfaced in Rome in 54 BC. He introduced the Tironian system. And that system expanded over time. That can be (and is) true, independent of what happened in Greece and with Greek.

Are you claiming that the Greek testimony somehow outweighs Roman history, northern European evidence, Cicero's letters, and much more?

Keep in mind that Plutarch's testimony for 63 BC, which you alluded to, actually testifies to earlier, pre-Tironian attempts at such things.

So it's not an either/or. The frosty side and the shredded wheat side can co-exist peacefully.

In that context, can you see how the Greek testimony doesn't do what you thought it did?

Thanks for clarifying the pre-Tironian attempts at shorthand. That makes sense to me.

From my vantage point, a Greek origin of rapid writing gives a likely concepetual source, a place where the idea for shorthand was born. Your hypothesis--that the reformed Egyptian of the Book of Mormon is an original shorthand and became the source of Tironian script--requires a path from the Old World, to the Americas, back to northern Europe, traveling with Tiro down to Rome and Cicero, and then branching out in numerous forms across Europe, explaining why Joseph Smith's printed characters--the ones sent to Professor Anthon--resembled Tironian scripts.

If Tiro got the idea for shorthand from the Greeks, it predates Hagoth's Book of Mormon voyage, making him a superfluous vector and the transatlantic voyages unnecessary. We now have a tree (Tiro and the first practical shorthand) and branches (various Tironian scripts that evolved over the years) with roots in Greece. In my view, this is more simple than your proposed sequence. A conceptual link from Tiro back to the Greeks becomes an adjuctive bit of evidence undercutting your proprosal. At least, that's how I see it.

Gary@rics

[notHagoth7]

Thanks for clarifying the pre-Tironian attempts at shorthand. That makes sense to me.

You're welcome.

From my vantage point, a Greek origin of rapid writing gives a likely conceptual source, a place where the idea for shorthand was born.

If that works for you.

However, for the record, your assertion for a Greek origin is based on nothing more than from-the-hip supposition. It isn't based on any direct evidence, or even on a comparison of Greek systems to Tironian. If you simply don't want to give Joseph the benefit of the considerable evidence in his favor, there's not much I can do to be of help to you. But for the record, your approach ignores the evidence that offers the most congruent way for the young Tiro to come to serve Cicero's brother (as a slave acquired during the Gallic campaign), based on three specific statements in the direct evidence of Cicero's letters.

Your hypothesis--that the reformed Egyptian of the Book of Mormon is an original shorthand and became the source of Tironian script--requires a path from the Old World, to the Americas

Exhibit A - that vector of cultural diffusion is attested to by the Egyptian content within Mi'kmaq. As you have acknowledged.

back to northern Europe

Exhibits B - and that vector of cultural diffusion is attested to by numerous northern European origin accounts - and seafaring eyewitness testimony. That evidence not only attests to the direction of travel (from west to east), but to the precise timing, whether we consider Shield, or the 56 BC naval battle on the Atlantic seaboard.

traveling with Tiro down to Rome and Cicero

Exhibits C - that vector is attested to in Cicero's letters - which show Tiro surfacing immediately after his brother's first campaigns there - and that specifically attests to Tiro being his brother's former servant, and which trace his brother's speedwriting to that campaign.

and then branching out in numerous forms across Europe

Exhibits D - that vector is clearly attested to by a broad range of European sources which trace Tironian back to Tiro.

In other words each of the legs of cultural transmission/diffusion are extensively attested to by evidence already provided in this thread. And we're about to examine yet another.

explaining why Joseph Smith's printed characters--the ones sent to Professor Anthon--resembled Tironian scripts.

I would posit that the most significant correlations and cultural contributions from the likely Tiro connections are not his chicken scratch.

Instead, the most significant correlations are the scope and vector of Cicero's writings from 55 BC on. The meat in his writings that permeated throughout Western Civilization, and helped form the foundation for the political thought of the founding fathers based on freedom and just rule.

These are the things Cicero and Tiro pondered and discussed, as Cicero battled to preserve and defend the last vestiges of the crumbling Roman Republic.

What one will notice, if one is familiar with the Book of Mormon and happens to read Cicero's writings, is a VERY distinct match in Cicero's writings to Nephite thought on benevolent government and just rule. Which is notably the same thought introduced into northern Europe by the seafaring Shield during that same generation. I highly recommend exploring Cicero's writings from that perspective.

Which I submit as Exhibits E.

If Tiro got the idea for shorthand from the Greeks

I respectfully object.

Supposition. Unsubstantiated.

Your assertion here flies in the face of the above evidence, doesn't address the issue of Semitic in northern Europe, or a broad array of other aberrational cultural parallels between northern Europe and the Nephite record.

it predates Hagoth's Book of Mormon voyage

I don't follow. Does Greek predating Hagoth's journey somehow make for a superior argument? How?

If you somehow deem that to be a logical maxim, does the Egyptian in Mi'kmaq that predates Greek thereby trump your assertion here?

If not, why the double standard?

making him a superfluous vector and the transatlantic voyages unnecessary.

Huh. Superfluous? Unnecessary?

This suggests a preconceived preference - and that you will dismiss relevant evidence with the wave of a hand.

Your honor, in this matter, I suggest that you recuse yourself - and that you retreat to your chambers for a careful, thoughtful, prayerful reading of the Nephite record.

We now have a tree (Tiro and the first practical shorthand) and branches (various Tironian scripts that evolved over the years) with roots in Greece.

A tree?! What you have is at best a shrub. To which I say, "Nee!"

• You have not demonstrated any evidence for Tironian deriving from Greek shorthand. (Or even for Greek shorthand existing in Cicero's Rome.) Other than from-the-hip supposition. Yet you are ready to rule in favor of that unsubstantiated rumor of your own making?
  
• You haven't accounted for the apparent Egyptian in Mi'kmaq.
  
• Or for Semitic in northern Europe.
  
• You haven't accounted for the evidence for young Tiro's vector from Gaul - during the same generation as seafaring immigrants arrived from the West.
  
• You haven't accounted for the numerous cultural aberrations that have their match both in the Nephite record and in northern Europe.
  
• You haven't accounted for the substantial correlations between Cicero's profound writings on gov't and its direct parallels to previous generations of Nephite thought on the topic of just rule - and the fact that Cicero's writings, via Tiro, emerge at the same juncture in time that the seafaring Shield introduced the same concepts of just rule into northern Europe.
  
• Etc., etc.
  

In my view, this is more simple than your proposed sequence.

Is your approach simpler? Well...sure....if you consider sweeping a mound of actual evidence under the carpet as a way of simplifying things.

To be frank, however, that approach is not balanced, reasonable, or just.

I suggest that you consider recusing yourself from this matter if you are unwilling to weigh the merits of dropping all charges against the Nephite record, based on the preponderence of evidence. And, respectfully, I ask again that you retreat to your chambers for a careful, thoughtful, and prayerful reading of the Nephite record.

[notHagoth7]

Gary,

I'm beginning to suspect that you're just funnin' with me.

Is that the case?

[Gary@rics]

Gary,

I'm beginning to suspect that you're just funnin' with me.

Is that the case?

No. While I have enjoyed some of our back-and-forth sparring, the new information that I've encountered, and the ways this whole thing makes me think, I'm sincere in disagreeing with you. I agree with your Exhibits C and D, but do not concede that Mi'kmac derives from Egyptian. I agree with you that finding a written American script--one having no basis in European scripts and resembling the Anthon characters--would add muscle to your hypothesis. That's an intriguing question, by the way. Which more closely resemble the Anthon characters: scripts related to the lost Detroit Manuscript or the Mi'kmac script?

I do not believe that finding a conceptual link between Tiro and the Greeks is "shooting from the hip." My introduction to that evidence came from your posts, which I pondered. It seems to me that most major advances in complex systems (such as writing, ship building, or forms of government) tend to come from multiple contributors. I believe that you are indirectly saying that Tiro had to get the method of shorthand script from somewhere, and that place was his Nephite ancestors in the Americas. Even if your hypothesis were correct, we would still have the matter of an abrupt onset of reformed Egyptian, beginning with Nephi or possibly Lehi. Where did they get the idea? Proposing a Nephite solution doesn't resolve the matter of sudden inception. If one cites inspiration, the same notion could apply equally to Tiro, especially if he were in a circumstance where the problem and proposed solutions were being bandied about. If instead you postulate that reformed Egyptian was evolving and used in the Old World, would it be wrong to expect some traces of it, a highly compact phonetic Egyptian? Something like that would surely be a precious intellectual nugget. Finally, I don't see what is so implausible about expecting a robustly blossoming conceptual form to have nearby roots. It makes more sense to me that shorthand was conceived, developed, and evolved into multiple variants in geographically contiguous steps than it is to say it originated thousands of miles away, leaving only one tenuous heir in the land where it purportedly was cherished.

By the way, I laughed at your shrubbery and "Nee!" comment. Thanks for the light-heartedness. Perhaps I am a knight who says,

[notHagoth7]

Hi Gary,

No. While I have enjoyed some of our back-and-forth sparring, the new information that I've encountered, and the ways this whole thing makes me think, I'm sincere in disagreeing with you.

OK. Thanks for clarifying.

And I have seriously enjoyed/valued this exchange with you as well.

I agree with your Exhibits C and D

OK - we're off to a roaring start.

So Tiro being acquired during Quintus' campaigns in Northern Europe is sufficiently established for you. (Exhibits C)

That would be the orange region outlined below, more specifically the dark orange region:

This is the likely source of the epicenter from which Tiro's influence later radiated outward from Rome.

I'll get back to that examining that region in a minute.