Viable Nephite colonies

[ERayR]

notHagoth7,

Okay. You have picked up several new folks here curious to see what you have to say about an Irish connection to the Nephites. We have given you the courtesy of moving to a new thread and are willing to hear what you have to say. So you should just go ahead and say it.

We are all adults here and at least some of us know more about European history than you do (and the rest always have Google), so please stop wasting time with the obvious.

The longer you wait to provide your central thesis and supporting information, the higher the expectations of your "audience" will be.

If I were a suspicious person, I would say this is starting to look like a dodge to avoid further public discussion on the other thread of the proof that Martin Harris (or Joseph Smith and Martin Harris) conspired to misrepresent the outcome of the meeting with Anthon, in order to continue with their wholly fabricated story regarding the provenance of the Book of Mormon.

Perhaps, since we are all here anyway, we should use the time to discuss this latter topic while we are waiting.

Hey o wise one with all the learning temper doesn't mix well with arrogance. Be patient.

[charity]

All the "evidence" for the Book of Mormon should be looked at as interesting, entertianing, fun stuff. But knowing whether or not the Book of Mormon is true is completely independent of any such information.

But we can waste time on message boards discussing it, if we want to.

[notHagoth7]

So I come back to find people hollering 'Hurry up! Where's the beef?!'

And others jumping in to object to the first whisp of evidence, before I'm even half way through presenting it.

While another objection claims that simply discussing such things is a waste of time.

We're off to a roaring start!

As to the first issue, we're talking about over one hundred ancient/medieval sources. And that's before counting dozens of modern published findings. So if you guys are assuming that presenting such evidence (let alone discussing it) means a casual two-day discussion, you've drastically underestimated the extent of the evidence. This ain't a quick microwave pizza. I'll pass forward the evidence as rapidly as time allows. But due to its extensive scope, this is gonna take awhile. If that's too meandering for some, I don't know what else to tell you to help manage expectations. As to there being no theory, this is pretty basic:

1) There is a region in Europe where a seafaring people anciently claimed to descend from a Nephi/Nefi, or to be Nephites/Nefates, or something similar.

2) A form of Semitic has been demonstrated to have been spoken anciently in that same region.

3) Either those historical people are related to the Nephites from the Book of Mormon, or they aren't.

4) The cultural artifacts from that region should allow us to ascertain whether it's possible to reasonably infer one conclusion or the other.

As to those who are already jumping in to oppose the first piece of evidence (Beowulf) - I've barely begun to present the evidence from that document. So you're objecting to something that's not even in place yet. I'd invite you to simply wait until a piece of evidence has been presented/explained, and the content itself will likely resolve a good half of your concerns. Such restraint will save us all some time and bandwidth. (I might relocate my presentation of the evidence to another website, and let this thread function instead as a running commentary/discussion. That might mitigate such things.)

And in response to the assertion that discussing such evidence is a waste of time, the evidence could enhance your appreciation for that record, and/or for your heritage (See Title Page or Jacob 5). There is such counsel as to study things out first in one's mind. And to study histories, and languages, etc. But if that doesn't seem relevant here, or it that's not your cup of [herbal] tea, march on.

[Arc]

All the "evidence" for the Book of Mormon should be looked at as interesting, entertianing, fun stuff. But knowing whether or not the Book of Mormon is true is completely independent of any such information.

But we can waste time on message boards discussing it, if we want to.

"Knowledge" independant of evidence: what a concept. Belief held in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary: priceless.

So do I take it that you would recommend belief in the Book of Mormon even if it turned out that there was no such thing as "Reformed Egyptian", and that Joseph Smith just copied Gaelic, Tironian note and Ogham code characters from an old Irish Catholic manuscript that nobody could translate at the time and claimed that they were "Reformed Egyptian" from gold plates given him by an angel?

Because, if you do, then think about what you are saying about the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the objective truthfulness of the Church. You are essentially saying that it does not matter if any of it is factually true, it only matters that one "feels" it is true.

[Jeff_Ricks]

We'll folks, I've had enough of this. I don't know about anyone else but I'm tired of being strung along with a continuation of short posts and teasers. His last one is more of the same. I see where this is going -- if he had a real case to present he would have presented it by now. I have no interest in spending anymore of my online time following what looks to me like a Pied Piper, for who knows how long (days, weeks, months?) before he finally gets around to making his case. I'm outta here!

[charity]

"Knowledge" independant of evidence: what a concept. Belief held in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary: priceless.

So do I take it that you would recommend belief in the Book of Mormon even if it turned out that there was no such thing as "Reformed Egyptian", and that Joseph Smith just copied Gaelic, Tironian note and Ogham code characters from an old Irish Catholic manuscript that nobody could translate at the time and claimed that they were "Reformed Egyptian" from gold plates given him by an angel?

Because, if you do, then think about what you are saying about the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the objective truthfulness of the Church. You are essentially saying that it does not matter if any of it is factually true, it only matters that one "feels" it is true.

You entirely mistake me. I am talking about a different form of knowledge, more sure than anything artifacts, ancient lore, language similarities, archeolgoical digs, etc. can provide. When God, through the Holy Ghost, tells you something is true, you don't need anything else.

Of course, I believe there was such a thing as reformed Egyptian, and real people who called themselves Nephites, and a real city of Zarahemla. And that the Book of Mormon, that is the gold plates, really existed and Joseph had it in his possession at one time.

And it is important that it is factually true. But what doesn't matter is if there is any of that "mortal" proof that it is. I knew the Book of Mormon, the book I can hold in my hands, to be the translation of an ancient document long before I had heard of any "mortal" proof that is. Oh, and by the way, I believe there is plenty of such evidence, mostly internal consistencies and historical details confirmed well after the publicaiton of the book.

You obviously don't understand "testimony" or else you wouldn't refer to it as "feeling."

[charity]

And in response to the assertion that discussing such evidence is a waste of time, the evidence could enhance your appreciate for that record, and/or for your heritage (See Title Page or Jacob 5). There is such counsel as to study things out first in one's mind. And to study histories, and languages, etc. But if that doesn't seem relevant here, of it that's not your cup of [herbal] tea, march on.

I am sorry, notHagoth7. I did not intend to demean your topic. I find the idea of a group of people providing evidence that seems to confirm the reality of the Book of Mormon fascinating.

I just meant to say that we don't need that type of evidence. And if the "what ifs" you wrote about, really exist, that would be fascinating. But it is not going to convert anyone to the reality of the Book of Mormon.

But I will continue to read with interest.

[Arc]

You entirely mistake me. I am talking about a different form of knowledge, more sure than anything artifacts, ancient lore, language similarities, archeolgoical digs, etc. can provide. When God, through the Holy Ghost, tells you something is true, you don't need anything else.

Of course, I believe there was such a thing as reformed Egyptian, and real people who called themselves Nephites, and a real city of Zarahemla. And that the Book of Mormon, that is the gold plates, really existed and Joseph had it in his possession at one time.

And it is important that it is factually true. But what doesn't matter is if there is any of that "mortal" proof that it is. I knew the Book of Mormon, the book I can hold in my hands, to be the translation of an ancient document long before I had heard of any "mortal" proof that is. Oh, and by the way, I believe there is plenty of such evidence, mostly internal consistencies and historical details confirmed well after the publicaiton of the book.

You obviously don't understand "testimony" or else you wouldn't refer to it as "feeling."

You claim to believe that "Reformed Egyptian" as described by Joseph Smith, was a real language or means of writing. How then can you explain the fact that the only existing example of "Reformed Egyptian" written by Joseph Smith himself, is in fact a mixture of Gaelic, Tironian notes and Ogham code?

Please keep in mind that none of these 17th century scripts have any connection whatsoever to Egyptian, or even to Hebrew for that matter. They were not even developed until around the 8th century AD, several centuries after the last entries into the Book of Mormon were said to have been made.

Given these facts, I would say that your response above is a classic proclamation of belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, also known as irrational belief or magical thinking. Please don't call it simple faith. Faith is unfounded belief of belief without evidence. This is quite different from believe in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Gary@rics]

I understand your take on the types of evidence, Charity. For most people, compelling conviction doesn't rest--at least initially--on objective evidence. I truly value the more subjective approaches to discerning truth, especially as a guide to where I should begin my search. In terms of really rock solid conviction, however, my preference is for something more tangible to hold onto. I woud much prefer to fly in an airplane designed via objective methods! Anyway, I'm looking forward to the hard evidence. Could we start with the European people known as Nephites? That's intriguing. Charity and I would probably agree, however, that it won't shed too much light on the Book of Mormon, which did not emphasize the importance of a group of Nephites moving across the sea. Even so, I personally would like to start with that angle of evidence.

--Gary@rics

[charity]

You claim to believe that "Reformed Egyptian" as described by Joseph Smith, was a real language or means of writing. How then can you explain the fact that the only existing example of "Reformed Egyptian" written by Joseph Smith himself, is in fact a mixture of Gaelic, Tironian notes and Ogham code?

Please keep in mind that none of these 17th century scripts have any connection whatsoever to Egyptian, or even to Hebrew for that matter. They were not even developed until around the 8th century AD, several centuries after the last entries into the Book of Mormon were said to have been made.

Given these facts, I would say that your response above is a classic proclamation of belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, also known as irrational belief or magical thinking. Please don't call it simple faith. Faith is unfounded belief of belief without evidence. This is quite different from believe in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I have not seen any of the scripts you refer to. However, even saying you are correct (which I am not, not having seen any evidence of such), then you still have to prove that Joseph had access to them. Let's see, 3red grade educated farm boy in upstate New York, has access to 17th century esoteric writing styles? Oh, right. I forgot about that really extensive library the Smith family had in the barn.

And again, you really do get things wrong. First, I haven't seen any "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" no matter how long critics have been trying to muster such a body of evidence. Second, only people who have not ever exoerienced a spiritual witness will refer to it as irratinal belief or magical thinking. And it isn't faith. Once a person has had a spiritual witness, then we don't need faith. We KNOW.

[charity]

I truly value the more subjective approaches to discerning truth, especially as a guide to where I should begin my search. In terms of really rock solid conviction, however, my preference is for something more tangible to hold onto. I woud much prefer to fly in an airplane designed via objective methods! Anyway, I'm looking forward to the hard evidence. Could we start with the European people known as Nephites? That's intriguing. Charity and I would probably agree, however, that it won't shed too much light on the Book of Mormon, which did not emphasize the importance of a group of Nephites moving across the sea. Even so, I personally would like to start with that angle of evidence.

--Gary@rics

Maybe my different perspective is from a knowledge of the history of science. That which you call "something more tangible" has so often been overturned. Mortality is prone to error. The witness of the Spirit is not.

[Jeff_Ricks]

Second, only people who have not ever exoerienced a spiritual witness will refer to it as irratinal belief or magical thinking. And it isn't faith. Once a person has had a spiritual witness, then we don't need faith. We KNOW.

So I'm back. I have to respond to Charity on a different subject. Charity, with all due respect, once a person thinks they've reached the state where the "KNOW" anything, they damn themselves. Facts no longer matter; you're 'knowing' trumps all facts and locks you into a self-perpetuating delusion. All the learning and weighing of evidence is not longer necessary. You've declared as such in your posts. Not only is it a damning position to take, in my opinion it's an arrogant position to take. You see, Mormons comprise less than 0.02% of world population and that's if you count all the inactives, which are more than half the numbers on the church rolls. I can't imagine that inactives "KNOW" like you think you do. So, you think you're part of an elite less than 0.01% of world population who have an inside track on receiving guidance from "God." And you know this how? Because something inside tells you. Guess what. Every devout member of any of the other 100,000 or so variations of various religions in the world also think they KNOW for the same kinds of reasons and with the same degree of conviction that you think you KNOW. What do you do with that? Why is their KNOWing any less real than yours?

Edited to add: "Getting rid of a delusion makes us wiser than getting hold of a truth." - Ludwig Borne

[rodheadlee]

Could we please stay on topic?

[Jeff_Ricks]

Could we please stay on topic?

Let me know if/when the topic actually gets started.

[charity]

So I'm back. I have to respond to Charity on a different subject. Charity, with all due respect, once a person thinks they've reached the state where the "KNOW" anything, they damn themselves. Facts no longer matter; you're 'knowing' trumps all facts and locks you into a self-perpetuating delusion. All the learning and weighing of evidence is not longer necessary. You've declared as such in your posts. Not only is it a damning position to take, in my opinion it's an arrogant position to take. You see, Mormons comprise less than 0.02% of world population and that's if you count all the inactives, which are more than half the numbers on the church rolls. I can't imagine that inactives "KNOW" like you think you do. So, you think you're part of an elite less than 0.01% of world population who have an inside track on receiving guidance from "God." And you know this how? Because something inside tells you. Guess what. Every devout member of any of the other 100,000 or so variations of various religions in the world also think they KNOW for the same kinds of reasons and with the same degree of conviction that you think you KNOW. What do you do with that? Why is their KNOWing any less real than yours?

Edited to add: "Getting rid of a delusion makes us wiser than getting hold of a truth." - Ludwig Borne

I have to deal with your false assumptions.

First, I would only be arrogant, if I claimed that I, alone, had access to such knowledge. But it is available to all.

Second, delusions are only delusions if they aren't real.

Third, no one has ever taught that only Mormons had access to the Spirit or spiritual witness. God loves all His children. Of course, the Spirit attests to truth, wherever it is found. But remember, Satan is able to perpetuate fraud. And there are doubtless many who have bought into Satan's phony version.

Fourth, I suspect you have never experienced a witness of the Spirit, given what your arguments are against such an experience. You want to make a judgement about something you admit you don't know anything about? What about the weight of evidence? Or do you routinely make pronouncements with no evidence to back you up?

By the way, just because you can quote someone bolstering your point doesn't mean that either one of you is correct.

[Arc]

I have not seen any of the scripts you refer to. However, even saying you are correct (which I am not, not having seen any evidence of such), then you still have to prove that Joseph had access to them. Let's see, 3red grade educated farm boy in upstate New York, has access to 17th century esoteric writing styles? Oh, right. I forgot about that really extensive library the Smith family had in the barn.

And again, you really do get things wrong. First, I haven't seen any "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" no matter how long critics have been trying to muster such a body of evidence. Second, only people who have not ever exoerienced a spiritual witness will refer to it as irratinal belief or magical thinking. And it isn't faith. Once a person has had a spiritual witness, then we don't need faith. We KNOW.

Perhaps you are not aware of overwhelming evidence to the contrary because you do not conisder it when presented to you. We know that Stephen Mack was interested in the Irish Catholic MS in question and may well have shared his interest and the script with Joseph Smith.

However, it really does not matter where Joseph Smith got the 17th century script. The fact is that it was available to Joseph Smith in terms of time and place.

What you seem to be forgetting is the the script that Joseph Smith claimed was "Reformed' Egyptian (no matter where he got it), was not "Reformed Egyptian", or any type of Egyptian or Hebrew, or any other Semitic language or script. This means that Joseph Smith was, in fact, lying when he said that it was "Reformed Egyptian".

And in believing his story, you are choosing to believe what has been documented as a lie. That is not faith, and it is certainly not "knowledge". It is magical thinking.

I agree that it would be better to return to the thread topic. However, your insistent expressions of unfounded belief need to be addressed for what they are.

[indy_jh]

Sorry, I'm trying to stay on topic here, but Solana (gosh, I feel like I know you from somewhere...) made a solid point that needs to be emphasized here.

I'll add one paragraph from the posting:

"But, the more probable explanation is that ancient cultures and religions were not as isolated as one might think. Ideas and myths from one area traveled to another just as they do today, just slower. Yes, Buddhism influenced early Christianity. There is a reason the same themes appear in almost every mythology. Those themes compel and intrigue us."

Using common archeological evidence, we can only discover limited amounts of information about the origins of civilizations and the paths of travel used by early societies. However, recent discoveries in DNA and the testing of civilizations around the globe have opened our eyes and filled in many of the holes in our understanding about where people came from and to where they moved -- as well as WHEN they moved.

What Solana mentioned is very well substantiated in the recent discoveries: essentially, that modern man did indeed branch out into the world from a relatively small group, anciently from east Africa, and traveled from there to inhabit the lower Asian continent moving northeast toward East Asia and even southeast toward Australia. Likewise, other branches moved north west toward Europe. (What I am describing began to occur from roughly 60,000 years ago.)

As these regions became inhibited, others followed over the many centuries of social development. The paths of social development clearly ALLOW and even SUBSTANTIATE the idea that religions could and did influence each other -- even at very early times in the development of religion. So, yes, all religions have common origins, and we should expect that there would be some common beliefs and even doctrine among them.

However, what I think is being suggested here is that a group of people called "Nephites," (descendents of Nephi of the BofM and of Hebrew decent, who first arrived on the Americas some time around 600BC), after having inhabited some region of the Americans for several centuries, then migrated back toward northern Europe some time later (before roughly 400 AD) and thus influenced the languages used there to the extent that their "Reformed Egyptian" characters and the Gaelic characters became very similar. And, therefore, we should expect the characters in the original gold plates (translated by Joseph Smith) to be very similar to those used in northern Europe -- particularly Ireland.

Is that right?

If that is true, are you suggesting that the original inhabitants of Ireland were Nephites?

If so, you would certainly be a maverick in the world of anthropology.

[Jeff_Ricks]

I have to deal with your false assumptions.

First, I would only be arrogant, if I claimed that I, alone, had access to such knowledge. But it is available to all.

Second, delusions are only delusions if they aren't real.

Third, no one has ever taught that only Mormons had access to the Spirit or spiritual witness. God loves all His children. Of course, the Spirit attests to truth, wherever it is found. But remember, Satan is able to perpetuate fraud. And there are doubtless many who have bought into Satan's phony version.

Fourth, I suspect you have never experienced a witness of the Spirit, given what your arguments are against such an experience. You want to make a judgement about something you admit you don't know anything about? What about the weight of evidence? Or do you routinely make pronouncements with no evidence to back you up?

By the way, just because you can quote someone bolstering your point doesn't mean that either one of you is correct.

To avoid straying off the topic that is fixing to get rolling here eventually maybe, this will be my last response to Charity. Charity, my response corresponds to your numbering above.

First: I disagree. I think your position is an arrogant one. See my reasons in number four below.

Second: A person is deluded BECAUSE she thinks her delusion IS real, so when the potentially deluded person is the one declaring that her experience IS real because she says it's real, her testimony has little to no believability for obvious reasons. That's why evidence is so important. It grounds our thinking in reality and exorcises delusions from our otherwise baseless thinking that can drift off into any perception of reality, whether real or not.

Third: If Satan has the power to counterfeit such experiences then how do you know that it isn't YOU who are misled by Satan and not those who testify just as firmly to contradictory belief?

Fourth: You look down your nose at me, from your 'enlightened' position, and declare that I must not be enlightened like you. That is arrogant whether or not you choose to accept it. All you really know is that I believe differently than you. Your behavior follows the pattern of those in the proverbial Great and Spacious Building but apparently you're too far gone to even realize it. What evidence are you talking about? The evidence of your self-declared spiritual experience? I've had such experiences. I once believed and thought like you. I thought the experiences were from 'God' just like you. I looked down my nose at the unenlightened too and KNEW because I experienced it myself, but as I later learned that there are more plausible explanations for such experiences -- like psychology, and the power of mass delusion.

[notHagoth7]

Let me know if/when the topic actually gets started.

The topic started in earnest with Beowulf. Beowulf offers us an initial glimpse of a European origin account.

The hero at the beginning of Beowulf is pretty crucial to our discussion, because he, along with a few others, is a key player at the very source of numerous northern European origin accounts. We're talking about mythology here, and genealogy, central to the belief systems of an entire region of northern Europe. Here's what one author has to say about the crucial nature of such origin accounts:

"Myths of origin enable people to locate themselves in time and space. They offer an explanation of the unknown and hallowed traditions by linking them to heroic events and personages of the distant past. In addition, they form the ground for belief systems or ideologies which, providing a moral validation for attitudes and activities, bind men together into a society."

(Hugh MacDougall - cited in Alexander Bruce's introduction in "Scyld and Scef - p. 12)

In a time when society is beginning to unravel, when we're each splintering off into our own cliques, wouldn't it be worthwhile to examine a shared past, to see if it might help us become a more united people? (Whether we end up believing the same things in other areas or not?)

1) I've asserted that a society paralleling the Nephites existed in Northern Europe at the right juncture in time to be a potential match. We'll get to some of the details of that in a bit. But regardless of whatever parallels I might come up with, the more important question is, were they Nephites? Or is it all just a convenient coincidence?

2) So a key question to help gauge the initial viability of that premise early on is, what did these historical people say about their own origins? Can skeptics see the relevance between that question and an initial foray into the origin account at the beginning of Beowulf?

And aren't those who descend from such people interested in their own origins? This is why we're starting with European origin accounts. So here we go:

Oddly enough, Shield (or Scyld, or Skjold), the character presented briefly at the beginning of Beowulf, plays no role in Beowulf's actions. Or in the main narrative. Yet, for some reason, his origin forms the preamble to the entire account. Why? What's his cultural significance?

He is mentioned in dozens of medieval manuscripts, spanning nine centuries and a half dozen countries. In most cases, he is simply mentioned in passing, similar to someone mentioning Miles Standish and expecting the audience to simply know who he is and how he is important...without any further explanation. In other words, Shield was a historical icon that many people in medieval Anglo-Scandinavian culture would have been familiar with. Why?

His importance is that he forms the beginning of English understanding of their origins as a people. And he forms the beginning of Danish understanding of the origins of their current dynasty. Such people trace his ancient arrival by boat on the coast of northern Europe as the beginning of their society.

It is noteworthy that the timing of Shield's arrival in northern Europe coincides with the introduction of the art of sailing into the region. We'll get back to that topic in a later post when we take a closer look at cultural diffusion in the region.

To provide a glimpse of that timing, according to Icelandic chronicles, Shield's grandson was ruling in northern Europe at the time of Caesar Augustus. Augustus died in 14 AD. One of those chronicles specifically says that Shield's grandson was ruling at the time of Christ's birth. If we accept the Icelandic testimony, that evidence provides our initial bearings for Shield's place in European chronology.

Does such a timeline offer a potential match for a Nephite arrival?

Count back two generations from the time of Augustus, and you find yourself around 60 BC. Contemporary with Hagoth - the Nephite who, according to the Book of Mormon, built a great ship (and a few smaller ones) that would bring Nephite and Ammonite emigrants to lands northward.

So we have two seafaring peoples. Both of them supposedly bordering the Atlantic.

And the one account (Nephite) claims that their people sailed northward, and were lost to Nephite history - never heard from again. Which nation received that ship full of people?

The other account (European) claims a ship landed on their coast in the North Sea from lands unknown, which instituted just rule, transformed their society, and for centuries, that origin account was revered as the foundling of their sense of a people.

So we have a sending civilization (Nephites).

And a receiving civilization (Europe) which was transformed by the result.

And both the sendoff and the arrival happened at precisely the right juncture of time.

And Beowulf also depicts sending their dead king, laden in a ship, back into the ocean from whence he came.

Is such a correlation helpful to frame the beginning of this discussion?

Does that help us being to examine potential historical and cultural parallels between the two peoples with greater focus?

For those who would like to do some reading about Shield on their own, in the context of origin accounts, I'd seriously recommend Alexander Bruce's "Scyld & Scef". (One of my all-time favorite books.) Page for page, it's one of the most expensive books I've ever purchased, but it's a gem.

Also, here's an online chapter from another source that expands upon what I've presented here - with citations you can dig into on your own.

And I especially recommend reading the first 52 lines of Beowulf (which ends with Shield's epic burial at sea).

By way of intended direction, we'll probably spend more time in Germanic/Scandinavian/English cultural origin issues to establish more of a baseline, and then we'll expand into Irish/Celtic issues relating to Arc's interest in Tironian. Fair enough?

[notHagoth7]

So, yes, all religions have common origins, and we should expect that there would be some common beliefs and even doctrine among them.

However, what I think is being suggested here is that a group of people called "Nephites," (descendents of Nephi of the BofM and of Hebrew decent, who first arrived on the Americas some time around 600BC), after having inhabited some region of the Americans for several centuries, then migrated back toward northern Europe some time later (before roughly 400 AD) and thus influenced the languages used there to the extent that their "Reformed Egyptian" characters and the Gaelic characters became very similar. And, therefore, we should expect the characters in the original gold plates (translated by Joseph Smith) to be very similar to those used in northern Europe -- particularly Ireland.

Is that right?

Yes. Excellent post.

If that is true, are you suggesting that the original inhabitants of Ireland were Nephites?

Some of them. Yes. We'll get to some of the evidence for that down the road.

If so, you would certainly be a maverick in the world of anthropology.

Oh, I'm a troublemaker in a number of areas.

All of this examination brings us back to two sentences at the heart of Solana's post:

But, the more probable explanation is that ancient cultures and religions were not as isolated as one might think.

Exactly.

Ideas and myths from one area traveled to another just as they do today, just slower.

Solana. I hear you. Be patient, and you'll see just how relevant those statements are in this context.

[notHagoth7]

What Solana mentioned is very well substantiated in the recent discoveries: essentially, that modern man did indeed branch out into the world from a relatively small group....Likewise, other branches moved north west toward Europe. (What I am describing began to occur from roughly 60,000 years ago.)

As these regions became inhibited, others followed over the many centuries of social development. The paths of social development clearly ALLOW and even SUBSTANTIATE the idea that religions could and did influence each other -- even at very early times in the development of religion.

Good stuff.

I intend to explore cultural diffusion later today.

We'll take a closer look at linguistic diffusion, plus the contemporary spread of specific concepts and skills in northern Europe.

This is in the context of the early conflict between the Nordic/Germanic Vanir and Aesir - which offers another glimpse of an origin account.

[notHagoth7]

What you seem to be forgetting is the the script that Joseph Smith claimed was "Reformed' Egyptian (no matter where he got it), was not "Reformed Egyptian", or any type of Egyptian or Hebrew, or any other Semitic language or script. This means that Joseph Smith was, in fact, lying when he said that it was "Reformed Egyptian".

Patience Arc. The Tuatha De Danaan are waiting in the wings. We'll get to them soon enough.

In the meantime, the genealogy of alphabets and writings systems goes something like this:

Egyptian > Phoenician > Greek > Latin

In other words, even OUR writing system, our alphabet, is re-formed Egyptian.

We don't speak much Egyptian. But our alphabet derives from re-formed Egyptian characters.

As do many modern writing systems. Including Irish miniscule.

So if you're going to claim that Joseph simply lifted the characters from the Detroit Manuscript, at least be forthright enough to acknowledge that even those characters actually ARE re-formed Egyptian.

More importantly, it's interesting that the Book of Mormon suggests that they used re-formed Egyptian characters, instead of Hebrew characters, specifically to compress meaning on to the restricted space of the plates. Perhaps a form of shorthand. And it's interesting that a form of writing you posit as being a possible source of the Anthon characters, Tironian, happens to be...well, evidence of such a script being actual shorthand. That the origin of Tironian traces to a contemporary of Hagoth should also be mentioned. But we'll get to that in greater detail later.

So when you assert that the only logical conclusion is that Joseph lifted from the Irish version, you're connecting less than half the dots.

And in believing his story, you are choosing to believe what has been documented as a lie. That is not faith, and it is certainly not "knowledge". It is magical thinking.

On the contrary, it is quite reasonable. Based on the above.

I agree that it would be better to return to the thread topic. However, your insistent expressions of unfounded belief need to be addressed for what they are.

The belief is founded.

And the basis for it is quite reasonable and respectable, based on a comprehensive assessment of the various data points.

But we'll come back to Tiro and the fighting Irish later.

[charity]

To avoid straying off the topic that is fixing to get rolling here eventually maybe, this will be my last response to Charity. Charity, my response corresponds to your numbering above.

First: I disagree. I think your position is an arrogant one. See my reasons in number four below.

Second: A person is deluded BECAUSE she thinks her delusion IS real, so when the potentially deluded person is the one declaring that her experience IS real because she says it's real, her testimony has little to no believability for obvious reasons. That's why evidence is so important. It grounds our thinking in reality and exorcises delusions from our otherwise baseless thinking that can drift off into any perception of reality, whether real or not.

Third: If Satan has the power to counterfeit such experiences then how do you know that it isn't YOU who are misled by Satan and not those who testify just as firmly to contradictory belief?

Fourth: You look down your nose at me, from your 'enlightened' position, and declare that I must not be enlightened like you. That is arrogant whether or not you choose to accept it. All you really know is that I believe differently than you. Your behavior follows the pattern of those in the proverbial Great and Spacious Building but apparently you're too far gone to even realize it. What evidence are you talking about? The evidence of your self-declared spiritual experience? I've had such experiences. I once believed and thought like you. I thought the experiences were from 'God' just like you. I looked down my nose at the unenlightened too and KNEW because I experienced it myself, but as I later learned that there are more plausible explanations for such experiences -- like psychology, and the power of mass delusion.

A quick rebuttal: Delusion is a belief in something that is false. That is the important word. False. If I believe in angels, and there really are angels, that isn't a delusion. And how arrogant is it to say that because you don't see angels, there aren't any?

About Satan's power to counterfeit. And maybe I am the one being deceived. That is your strongest argument. We will see, won't we, on the other side. But you should seriously consider the different outcomes. What happens if I am right and you are wrong, versus if you are right and I am wrong?

I have never said I looked down on you because I am enlightened, and you are not. I said I had a spiritual witness. I even said it is hard to discuss the issue, since there is no way to objectively examine internal events. If Jeff knew as much about psychology as he seems to think, then he would know that is the big issue in psychology. Most of what we know about human thought and emotion is based on self-reports. So how do we discriminate? Well, Jeff, the spiritual witness I refer to is not one that you abandon later on when you come upon 'plausible explanations.' So we must be talking about two different things. What you thought was a spiritual witness must be something different than what I experienced.

Oh, yes, and since you mention that psychology gives you a step up. I have a master's degree in psychology and I taught psych at the college level for 13 years.

[charity]

notHagoth7,

I think you are dealing with a lot of non-diffusionists. Do you have to go back to square one, and convince these guys that there was a lot of traveling back and forth between continuents in very early times?

[Arc]

The topic started in earnest with Beowulf. Beowulf offers us an initial glimpse of a European origin account.

<snip>

By way of intended direction, we'll probably spend more time in Germanic/Scandinavian/English cultural origin issues to establish more of a baseline, and then we'll expand into Irish/Celtic issues relating to Arc's interest in Tironian. Fair enough?

One question on the above post, if I may.

As described in Alma (see below) Hagoth sailed into the west sea by the narrow neck of land.

If one subscribes to LGT Mesoamerica, this puts him into the Pacific Ocean headed for the Sea of Cortez. If one subscribes to LGT Northern States, it puts him into one of the Great Lakes. Both of these departure points are a long way from the Atantic Ocean.

Alma 63:5-8:

5

And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an exceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the

west

sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward.

6

And behold, there were many of the Nephites who did enter therein and did sail forth with much provisions, and also many women and children; and they took their course northward. And thus ended the thirty and seventh year.

7

And in the thirty and eighth year, this man built other ships. And the first ship did also return, and many more people did enter into it; and they also took much provisions, and set out again to the land northward.

8

And it came to pass that they were never heard of more. And we suppose that they were drowned in the depths of the sea. And it came to pass that one other ship also did sail forth; and whither she did go we know not.