Captain Kidd'S Golden Bible?

[Jeff K.]

No persecution complex here, just amusement at your masterful use of deflection.

I don't know cdowis, he looked pretty amaturish to me.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Jeff K.

[cdowis]

Cinepro,

I looked over our discussion, and realized that my comments were inappropriate to the context of your post. You were not presenting an argument but simply giving a summary. You may or may not even agree with those arguments.

I remember the "golden age" of antimormonism where there was a long list of objections -- no cement cities, no wheels, no horses at all in America, no Hebrew inscriptions, and recently DNA. A very long list, indeed.

On our side, there was very little to show. We didn't have NHM, Valley of Lemuel, etc etc.

That list has become very sparse. The antis still say "no horses", but even that argument has changed. At first there were NO horses.... but then horse fossils were discovered. And then there were only tiny horses.. I remember an anti laughing about that one, tiny horses with elves riding them. But then full sized horse fossils were discovered. In desperation, we find them simply saying "horses" as if there had not been any change to the argument, but now meaning none since about 12 kya. Even YOU simply said horses as if that says it all.

When I asked you, "is that it?", it was not your fault. That list has grown so small and so anemic .. it's not your fault. Even you would probably agree that it is getting pretty pathetic, considering the lack of archeological work in pre-Classic mesoamerica.

I'm sure that you yourself find that list embarrassing... especially since DNA was taken off the list.

Please just ignore my previous comments.

We all know that it's not your fault. You're doing the best you can with what you got. The antimormons are now placing their bets on the BOM musical, with laughter and mockery.... the Mormons are going to get their own PLANET!!!!!

Let's see how that one works out.

Edited July 28, 2011 by cdowis

[Dan Vogel]

In addition to Huggins’s essay, Dialogue also published Larry Morris’s critique in vol. 36, No. 4, Winter 2003. In Summer 2006, I published a letter to the editor in which I said: “I agree with Larry Morris that Ronald V. Huggins’s essay … should have been more critical of the sources, but Morris’s critique … did little to improve that situation. While Morris is correct in assessing the sources in terms of firsthand/secondhand testimony and early/late composition, applying these standards is not as mechanical and automatic as he implies.” Mike should look these items up, as well as Ashurst-McGee’s response to me in a subsequent issue to gain a more appreciation for the sources and issues involved. In my opinion, Huggins’s essay was too uncritical of the sources and Morris and McGee were too restrictive.

[Chris Smith]

how many complete excavations have been made back to the BOM time period.

I have no idea, brother. I haven't counted. However, the literature on Pre-Columbian fauna is extensive, and I am not at all out on a limb with respect to horses, chariots, and elephants.

But let's get back to the topic we were discussing before your own masterful deflection, shall we?

Edited July 28, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Dan Vogel]

cdowis,

how many complete excavations have been made back to the BOM time period.

None. There's no such thing as BOM time period in New World archaeology.

[Pahoran]

cdowis,

None. There's no such thing as BOM time period in New World archaeology.

You see Dan, you strive to present yourself as the oh so "impartial" and scholarly fellow who'd be the last person on earth anyone could legitimately regard as an anti-Mormon, and then you let the cat out of the bag with dogmatically anti-Mormon assertions like that.

The Book of Mormon time period is ~ 600BC to 400AD. That's what Cdowis was referring to, not whether any secular archaeologist was willing to paint a target on their back by applying a Book of Mormon label to that period.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Gervin]

That's what Cdowis was referring to, not whether any secular archaeologist was willing to paint a target on their back by applying a Book of Mormon label to that period.

Regards,

Pahoran

persecution complex, redux

[Dan Vogel]

You see Dan, you strive to present yourself as the oh so "impartial" and scholarly fellow who'd be the last person on earth anyone could legitimately regard as an anti-Mormon, and then you let the cat out of the bag with dogmatically anti-Mormon assertions like that.

The Book of Mormon time period is ~ 600BC to 400AD. That's what Cdowis was referring to, not whether any secular archaeologist was willing to paint a target on their back by applying a Book of Mormon label to that period.

Regards,

Pahoran

Duh! It was a joke. Like how many witches were hanged in New England in the 1600s? The real argument would be in cdowis's fudge-word "complete"--which would lead to a question-begging definition no doubt. The implication is that Nephites would be found if a complete dig was performed--which is the fallacy of possible proof. I don't present myself as impartial, only as someone who can recognize weak arguments on both sides. Nevertheless, there is no such thing as BOM archaeology, and you can make whatever excuse you want for that.

[cdowis]

Duh! It was a joke. Like how many witches were hanged in New England in the 1600s?

I guess you have to be a historian to appreciate that as a joke.

The real argument would be in cdowis's fudge-word "complete"--which would lead to a question-begging definition no doubt.

Not really. I'm not unreasonable. I am looking for something more than digging around in the 1200 AD and turning a spadeful of dirt in the pre-classic period. There has to be a focused effort on the the preclassic excavation.

The implication is that Nephites would be found if a complete dig was performed--which is the fallacy of possible proof.

Now that is funny. I can appreciate that brand of humor.

Clearly you are pretending that you have gone back to mind reading, and don't even know the basics of applying logical reasoning.

Anyway, if you are going to use the argument, "not found, not exist", you better have something to base it on. That argument really is a logical fallacy.

I don't present myself as impartial, only as someone who can recognize weak arguments on both sides. Nevertheless, there is no such thing as BOM archaeology, and you can make whatever excuse you want for that.

Welcome back to our discussions.

FWIW, logic is a tool that I use every day in my profession. Basically that is how I make a living, like a carpenter uses a hammer.

Edited July 29, 2011 by cdowis

[Bernard Gui]

Here are some more potential sources for Cumorah and Moroni:

Kumano, Japan

Kumara, New Zealand

Kumawa, Indoneisa

Komarno, Hungary

Komarom, Hungary (note the -om ending...curelom)

Komono, Congo

Komoran, Indonesia

Komoro, Japan

Komotini, Macedonia (combo of Cumorah and Moroni)

Comarapa, Bolivia

Combarbala, Chile

Comoraste, Romania

Comorin, India

Cumra, Turkey

Marmora, Ontario (combo Moroni and Cumorah)

Maroni, Suriname

Morona, Peru, Ecuador

Moron, Cuba, Venezuela, Spain, Mongolia

Morombe, Madagascar

Morrum, Sweden

Murom, Russian Federation

Muroran, Japan

Muroto, Japan

Morovani, Ukraine

Granted, all the above are stretches, but the following cannot

be explained by Mormons, so it is irrefutable evidence that

Joseph Smith plagiarized the Tacoma Washington Yellow Pages:

”MORRONE’S SEWER AND DRAIN CLEANING SERVICE.”

Bernard

Edited July 29, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Benjamin McGuire]

I did want to add one comment -

The title of this thread (and the title of the linked Blog) was "Captain Kidd's Golden Bible". The "golden bible" seems to be a reference to the Book of Mormon, and the idea is perhaps that both the gold plates were buried as was Captain Kidd's Bible. Lots of people bury things - but the problem here seems to be that the burying is about as far as the similarity goes. Mike provides us with a reference to Captain Kidd's Bible in a song (which seems to have been reasonably popular). The song was published as a broadside in 1701 - the same year that Captain Kidd was executed. Later tradition (and perhaps early tradition, although finding early references beyond the song seems to me to be more effort than I am prepared to engage in right now - although for the purpose of this discussion, using sources reasonably contemporary with Joseph Smith ought to be adequate) gives us an impression very different from the story of the gold plates. In 1836, in The Pirate's Own Book (published in Boston), we get an account of this Bible. Some time between January of 1695 and May of 1696, "Capt. Kidd buried his bible on the sea-shore, in Plymouth Sound; its divine precepts being so at variance with his wicked course of life, that he did not choose to keep a book which condemned him in his lawless career." This was preceded (as you note) by Washington Irving's remarks in 1824 about the song published in the broadside in 1701, that "it tells how he gained the devil's good graces by burying the Bible". There are a number of later references which go so far as to suggest that this was part of Kidd's making a pact with the devil. So, for example, Myths and Legends of Our Own Land - 1896 - give us "It was known that Kidd had buried his Bible in order to ingratiate the evil one."

So, while both bury a sacred text, the one is burying it as treasure - something to be dug up later, something to be preserved in the earth. The other buries it as an act of desecration. And I think that any comparison between the two events (of the sort that Mike is trying to make here) depends on a rather superficial comparison that ignores these differences. And I think that these differences are quite important here. One of the reasons for this is the that the idea of burying treasure itself is not uncommon or unique to Captain Kidd traditions. Edgar Allen Poe was once accused of plagiarizing Imogine, a book by George Ann Humphreys Sherburne, in his own work The Gold-Bug. He wrote a response, published in the Dollar Newspaper which read in part:

the only point of coincidence being the finding of money - a subject which has been handled not only by Miss Sherburne, but by some fifty, if not by some five hundred talewriters; Mr. P. himself, in "The Gold-Bug," alluding to the multiplicity of stories current upon this topic. The man who should write a tale upon the subject of finding money, and propose, at the same time, to be original in his theme, must be a fool.

On some level there has to be recognition that a connection to the Captain Kidd traditions has to be much more concrete than a series of speculations built one on top the other. It isn't enough to say that Joseph might have gotten material from these Captain Kidd traditions (particularly when you cannot link him to specific traditions as in this case). It isn't enough to put it into Joseph's environment. You have to also show that it couldn't have come from some other source or some other place. What is it that makes this argument about Kidd so compelling? Unless we can come up with some that is far more compelling and relevant than what has been brought up, I don't think you can make any kind of serious claim that Joseph incorporated Captain Kidd traditions into his own narrative that he was producing. And the fact that we can find numerous other stories about buried treasure - complete with the notion of guardian spirits, concealed writings, and so on, make it far less likely that we must turn to a specific tradition like that of Captain Kidd as a potential source.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Duh! It was a joke.

You should quite your day job and become a comedian.

[Chris Smith]

The title of this thread (and the title of the linked Blog) was "Captain Kidd's Golden Bible".

Actually, it was "Captain Kidd's Golden Bible?" with a question mark. Just sayin'.

[Dan Vogel]

Cdowis,

Anyway, if you are going to use the argument, "not found, not exist", you better have something to base it on. That argument really is a logical fallacy.

I wouldn’t use that argument, knowing how tenuous negative evidence is, but you shouldn’t feel too comfortable about it either—because the burden is yours.

Not really. I'm not unreasonable. I am looking for something more than digging around in the 1200 AD and turning a spadeful of dirt in the pre-classic period. There has to be a focused effort on the the preclassic excavation.

Well, I can save you a lot of time looking for evidence that I know isn’t there in the first place. Your attempt to take refuge in our ignorance of pre-classic Mayan archeology is fraught with some very fallacious assumptions. True, you need such evidence, but I don’t. I reject your assumption of limited geography as a very weak ad hoc theory invented by apologists trying to save BOM historicity from adverse evidence. BOM geography is hemispheric and therefore fictional. In the absence of direct evidence, historical and literary anachronisms, tenuous as they are, take priority.

The implication is that Nephites would be found if a complete dig was performed--which is the fallacy of possible proof.

Now that is funny. I can appreciate that brand of humor.

Clearly you are pretending that you have gone back to mind reading, and don't even know the basics of applying logical reasoning.

No. I just think I’m a step ahead of you. It only appears like mind reading.

FWIW, logic is a tool that I use every day in my profession. Basically that is how I make a living, like a carpenter uses a hammer.

Probably against people who can’t defend themselves, right?

Welcome back to our discussions.

Well, I really wanted to discuss Huggins’ essay, but nice chatting with you.

[cdowis]

Cdowis,

I wouldn’t use that argument, knowing how tenuous negative evidence is, but you shouldn’t feel too comfortable about it either—because the burden is yours.

Really? I thought the burden belongs to the critics.

Oh, well. I guess we cannot agree on that point.

Well, I can save you a lot of time looking for evidence that I know isn’t there in the first place.

I am not in the "evidence business". I am quite satisfied with my position on the BOM. I am here to keep people like yourself on your toes when you make absurd statements.

Your attempt to take refuge in our ignorance of pre-classic Mayan archeology is fraught with some very fallacious assumptions.

Actually, it is founded on a book called "A Forest of Kings", written by noted archeologists (Friedel and Schele). I am simply agreeing with their conclusions. Perhaps you should check it out before making unfounded statements.

You see, I have done my homework. He has an interesting statement about the dearth of written records from that time period that you may find enlightening, and how it affects our knowledge of this time period.

True, you need such evidence, but I don’t.

Finally we are in agreement. I need not such evidence at all. I have my own means to test the validity of the book, and, as I said, I am satisfied with the results. This is merely a hobby.

I do find it interest in speaking with such individuals as yourself, when I present thet evidence, your respond is "That's just a coincidence". I remember how you used that phrase on several occasions.

Or, maybe that was someone else.

I reject your assumption of limited geography as a very weak ad hoc theory invented by apologists trying to save BOM historicity from adverse evidence. BOM geography is hemispheric and therefore fictional.

You know, we briefly discussed your skills in logical thought. Has it occurred that LGT does not preclude the hemispheric model. One of those "either.... or" fallacies, I believe. A conclusion based on a false premise......

The BOM mentions the "land northward", for example. And even gives us a boundary between that land and the BOM lands -- cement city. Now, where do we find a city using cement? Of course, with that vast storehouse of knowledge, you already know the answer. Just another coincidence, as I remember.

Anyway, the BOM tells us that there were many records for that land northward, but our version of the BOM ignores those records. It specifically tells us that Nephites were everywhere, BUT the BOM record itself is limited to one specific area. And it even describes that area, one description mentioning that it was one day's journey.

Now as to the lands southward, it makes no mention because that is in the realm of the Lamanites.

So the entire western hemisphere is indde "BOM lands", possibly full of Nephites and Lamanites. BUT the book itself that we possess today confines itself to the area between the lands northward and southward. That being, of course, North America and South America. And mesoamerica is that middle land.

Of course, you could have thought of that yourself, being an award winning scholar.

So the BOM is not false, only that you need to work on that logic problem that you have. I have pointed that out many times on the books that you have written, and those..... so-called conclusions. The explanation of the eight witnesses is certainly another example of your extreme humor.

In the absence of direct evidence, historical and literary anachronisms, tenuous as they are, take priority.

No. I just think I’m a step ahead of you. It only appears like mind reading.

A giggle a minute. You only appear to be mind reading. We need a laugh track.

Probably against people who can’t defend themselves, right?

It appears that you have included yourself in that category, as we look at your post here. (nothing personal, just want to throw in a joke myself here. It's not fair that you get all the laugh lines.)

Edited July 30, 2011 by cdowis

[Storm Rider]

And best of luck to you in your persecution complex, bro.

This is the best anti-Mormons can come up with. The thing that is so strange is that it happens immediately after thspoutput off with some canned, mindless "criticism". Okay, I am going to hit and will not stop until you admit I am not hitting you. Do you feel persecuted? Here, let me hit you some more. As a superior being I should be able to hit you and you must like it and admit that it is not persecution, but it is because you are a stupid Mormon.

They say this with a straight face, completely unaware of how ridiculous their statement is. The Light shines even in the face of so much balderdash.

[Dan Vogel]

Cdowis,

Really? I thought the burden belongs to the critics.

Oh, well. I guess we cannot agree on that point.

I think you need a new hammer—this one doesn’t seem to be working. Of course, the burden is on those who claim the BOM is real history.

I am not in the "evidence business". I am quite satisfied with my position on the BOM. I am here to keep people like yourself on your toes when you make absurd statements.

I can do both things while chewing gum.

Actually, it is founded on a book called "A Forest of Kings", written by noted archeologists (Friedel and Schele). I am simply agreeing with their conclusions. Perhaps you should check it out before making unfounded statements.

You see, I have done my homework. He has an interesting statement about the dearth of written records from that time period that you may find enlightening, and how it affects our knowledge of this time period.

It doesn’t sound good for you. I guess we’ll have to go with my approach.

True, you need such evidence, but I don’t.

Finally we are in agreement. I need not such evidence at all. I have my own means to test the validity of the book, and, as I said, I am satisfied with the results. This is merely a hobby.

I do find it interest in speaking with such individuals as yourself, when I present thet evidence, your respond is "That's just a coincidence". I remember how you used that phrase on several occasions.

Or, maybe that was someone else.

It could have been me complaining about your cherry picking evidence. I’m looking for something less ambiguous that can overturn the historical and literary anachronisms.

You know, we briefly discussed your skills in logical thought. Has it occurred that LGT does not preclude the hemispheric model. One of those "either.... or" fallacies, I believe. A conclusion based on a false premise......

Of course, Mesoamericans could move about the continent, but the LGT is incompatible with the “hemispheric model” in locating the narrow neck, lands northward and southward, land of many waters, and Hill Cumorah in completely different places in order to make distances, populations, and history more realistic.

The BOM mentions the "land northward", for example. And even gives us a boundary between that land and the BOM lands -- cement city. Now, where do we find a city using cement? Of course, with that vast storehouse of knowledge, you already know the answer. Just another coincidence, as I remember.

Of course, this cement city—identified by some apologists as Teotihuacán—didn’t exist in the time period needed. However, this shows that the LGT is incompatible with the hemispheric model.

Anyway, the BOM tells us that there were many records for that land northward, but our version of the BOM ignores those records. It specifically tells us that Nephites were everywhere, BUT the BOM record itself is limited to one specific area. And it even describes that area, one description mentioning that it was one day's journey.

I don’t think you know your own theory very well. The day and a half journey pertains to the narrow neck, not the entire Nephite lands. Mormon says that it was an “exceeding great distance” to the land of many waters.

Now as to the lands southward, it makes no mention because that is in the realm of the Lamanites.

However, it does say the land southward was “nearly surrounded by water”—“nearly” because the small neck of land connected to it on the north.

So the entire western hemisphere is indde "BOM lands", possibly full of Nephites and Lamanites. BUT the book itself that we possess today confines itself to the area between the lands northward and southward. That being, of course, North America and South America. And mesoamerica is that middle land.

Of course, you could have thought of that yourself, being an award winning scholar.

You must be reading a different BOM than I am, because most of the BOM takes place between the land of first inheritance and the small neck of land in the land southward—not between the land northward and southward. Zarahemla was in the “heart” of the land southward—and the land southward was nearly surrounded by water. The BOM describes the neck of land as being flanked by east and west seas and a line being drawn from the east to the west (dividing the land northward from the land southward), which does not fit the Isthmus of Tehuantepec but correlates very nicely with Panama. I reject Sorenson’s attempt to tilt the map 45 degrees as an ad hoc theory. The small neck apparently ran from Tehuantepec to Panama and was part of the land northward, and the “narrow pass” was the part that connected with the land southward.

So the BOM is not false, only that you need to work on that logic problem that you have.

So far, no lessons from you, but I’m always willing to learn.

I have pointed that out many times on the books that you have written, and those..... so-called conclusions. The explanation of the eight witnesses is certainly another example of your extreme humor.

I try to keep my conclusions modest. For example, I don’t conclude the BOM isn’t inspired or JS isn’t a prophet. As for the eight witnesses, my explanation is only the best given the information we have.

Probably against people who can’t defend themselves, right?

It appears that you have included yourself in that category, as we look at your post here. (nothing personal, just want to throw in a joke myself here. It's not fair that you get all the laugh lines.)

Ouch! You slay me! Actually, I was fishing. No denial. Hummmm. Perhaps a defense attorney?

[Chris Smith]

Hi Storm Rider,

So to be clear, you're saying that pointing out Book of Mormon anachronisms is equivalent to calling Mormons stupid and idiotic?

If so, then I profoundly disagree.

Peace,

-Chris

[Glenn101]

Seems like a game, set and match to me.....

I think the entire Kidd article belongs in the annals of improbable and inappropriately stretched history.

The sources tell the tale. When Ellen E. ****inson is quoted as a source that links the Captain Kidd ditty with Joseph:

It is said that Joseph at an early age could read' date=' but not write; and when quite young committed these lines to memory from the story of Captain Kidd, the notorious pirate, which seemed to give him great pleasure,[/quote']

That is some good source material there. With wonderful supporting documentation.

Glenn

Edited August 1, 2011 by Glenn101

[Jeff K.]

"It is said....." perfect for real historical research. Especially when talking about pirates.