View Of The Hebrews? Again?

[Pahoran]

In yet another example of how Mortal Man is on Dan Peterson's "side," MM tried to sandbag Dan about his Mormon Times article thus:

"O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people" (2 Nephi 29:4-5).

“That a book which God gave, was once theirs; and then things went well with them. But other people got it from them, and then they fell under the displeasure of the Great Spirit; but that they shall at some time regain it.” (VotH, p. 78, 1823).

Interesting, but I fail to see a parallel. The two passages are of roughly the same length, but I see no evidence of borrowing. Care to point it out to us?

"Yea," wrote the prophet Mormon, "and ye need not any longer hiss, nor spurn, nor make game of the Jews, nor of any remnant of the house of Israel; for behold, the Lord remembereth his covenant unto them, and he will do unto them according to that which he hath sworn" (3 Nephi 29:8 ).

“Look at the origin of those degraded natives of your continent, and fly to their relief. -- Send them the heralds of salvation. Send them the word, the bread of life. You received that book from the seed of Abraham. Restore it to them, and thus double your own rich inheritance in its blessings. Learn them to read the book of grace. Learn them its history and their own. Teach them the story of their ancestors; the economy of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” (VotH, p. 151, 1823).

Once again, there are no obvious parallels in this pair. One warns the gentiles against persecution of the Jews, promising that God will fulfil His covenant with them; the other encourages Americans to evangelise the Indians.

Incidentally, I am surprised to see the college-educated Ethan Smith using "learn" as a synonym for "teach." Of course, at one time that was a fairly common American idiom, but I don't remember seeing it in any of Joseph's voluminous writings; none that made it to publication, anyhow.

Does anyone really take VoTH seriously as a "source" for the Book of Mormon?

Regards,

Pahoran

[altersteve]

Does anyone really take VoTH seriously as a "source" for the Book of Mormon?

I certainly don't. The fact that Joseph himself pointed out the similarities between it and the Book of Mormon makes me seriously doubt the theory that he plagiarized from it.

[BCSpace]

I think one of the fatal flaws in the notion that the BoM was inspired by VotH is that VotH is strongly antiSemitic and one would think that sentiment would have been carried over by JS if this notion were true. Instead the BoM is very friendly to the Jews.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Does anyone really take VoTH seriously as a "source" for the Book of Mormon?

Regards,

Pahoran

Yes, MM does. He is always peddling his view of the Hebrews.

I notice one other thing. He is stunningly absent from this thread.

[Mortal Man]

Yes, MM does. He is always peddling his view of the Hebrews.

Actually, I've been peddling B. H. Roberts' views. But alas, my seeds have fallen on stony ground.

I notice one other thing. He is stunningly absent from this thread.

I just now noticed this thread.

[Mortal Man]

I think one of the fatal flaws in the notion that the BoM was inspired by VotH is that VotH is strongly antiSemitic and one would think that sentiment would have been carried over by JS if this notion were true. Instead the BoM is very friendly to the Jews.

VotH is not anti-Semitic.

VotH and the BoM came from the same milieu. Whether the BoM was directly inspired by VotH is less relevant than the fact that both drew heavily from common ideas of the time. Ethan Smith did not invent the Indians-are-Hebrews theory; he mostly just summarized and popularized it by quoting from other books and interpreting Isaiah et al. accordingly. The Indian/Hebrews theory goes all the way back to the 16th century.

[Mortal Man]

The fact that Joseph himself pointed out the similarities between it and the Book of Mormon...

What is your reference for this?

[Mortal Man]

Interesting, but I fail to see a parallel.

2 Kings 6:17

The two passages are of roughly the same length, but I see no evidence of borrowing. Care to point it out to us?

Neither do I see any evidence of textual borrowing. That wasn't my point.

Once again, there are no obvious parallels in this pair.

You're missing the forest for the trees. VotH proclaims that the Indian Jews have lost their scriptures and knowledge of the gospel but God has not forgotten them and He is calling upon the inhabitants of the New York area to "teach them the story of their ancestors." The BoM responds to this call.

Does anyone really take VoTH seriously as a "source" for the Book of Mormon?

"...remarkable from the fact that [View of the Hebrews] produces such strong evidences in favor of the genuineness of the Book of Mormon. ... [the author] in more than one place, refers to a tradition among the various tribes that in former times they possessed a book of great value, which they had lost, but which would at some time be restored to them. ... This is exactly the story, from the Lamanites standpoint, which the Book of Mormon records."

--Elder George Reynolds of the Seventy, 1902

You ought to read Roberts' essays.

[Pahoran]

Actually, I've been peddling B. H. Roberts' views.

Actually, you have not.

But I rather think you know that. I rather think you know you are merely dropping Roberts' name for polemical purposes, despite the fact that Roberts remained a stauch Book of Mormon believer and defender throughout his life.

But alas, my seeds have fallen on stony ground.

That was careless of you.

2 Kings 6:17

IOW, you have no valid argument for a parallel either. Got it.

Neither do I see any evidence of textual borrowing. That wasn't my point.

You're missing the forest for the trees. VotH proclaims that the Indian Jews have lost their scriptures and knowledge of the gospel but God has not forgotten them and He is calling upon the inhabitants of the New York area to "teach them the story of their ancestors." The BoM responds to this call.

Ah; circular argument. Got it.

"...remarkable from the fact that [View of the Hebrews] produces such strong evidences in favor of the genuineness of the Book of Mormon. ... [the author] in more than one place, refers to a tradition among the various tribes that in former times they possessed a book of great value, which they had lost, but which would at some time be restored to them. ... This is exactly the story, from the Lamanites standpoint, which the Book of Mormon records."

--Elder George Reynolds of the Seventy, 1902

Source, please?

You ought to read Roberts' essays.

I have, as a matter of fact.

That's why I can tell when he's being brazenly misrepresented.

Regards,

Pahoran

[why me]

If Joseph Smith was preparing to invent a fraud, I don't think that plagarism would have been the way to go to ensure its success. In fact, just the opposite. The view of the hebrews practically made no impact with the critics at the time of joseph smith. To my mind, no one left the church because of the view of the hebrews. And if we think about it, I am sure that JS was asked about any similiarites that they may contain and he gave a satisfactory answer. No controversy at all.

For a con to succeed with a book, the conman must be original in that book.

[Mortal Man]

If Joseph Smith was preparing to invent a fraud, I don't think that plagarism would have been the way to go to ensure its success.

I've stated over and over that JS did not plagiarize VotH, yet virtually everyone here persists in misstating my position. It's really grown tiresome. If you wish to engage in meaningful conversation then you must make some minimal effort to understand the critical position, rather than regurgitating soundbites absorbed from your fellow apologists.

In fact, just the opposite. The view of the hebrews practically made no impact with the critics at the time of joseph smith. To my mind, no one left the church because of the view of the hebrews.

That is the wrong way to look at it. You're imposing our present understanding of VotH on the early saints. The situation was in fact quite the opposite. The early saints saw VotH as evidence for the BoM. They even advertised the BoM as fulfillment of the prophecies of Ethan Smith et al.

For a con to succeed with a book, the conman must be original in that book.

For a con to succeed, it must fulfill a set of pre-existing expectations. The BoM fulfills VotH, just as Return of the King fulfills the first two books.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually, I've been peddling B. H. Roberts' views. But alas, my seeds have fallen on stony ground.

Oh so that is what you were doing? I guess only you knew that. Lol

I just now noticed this thread.

You know I was just ribbing you, Right?

[altersteve]

What is your reference for this?

An article written by Joseph called "From Priest's American Antiquities," which can be found the June 1, 1842 issue of Times and Seasons.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

VotH and the BoM came from the same milieu. Whether the BoM was directly inspired by VotH is less relevant than the fact that both drew heavily from common ideas of the time. Ethan Smith did not invent the Indians-are-Hebrews theory; he mostly just summarized and popularized it by quoting from other books and interpreting Isaiah et al. accordingly. The Indian/Hebrews theory goes all the way back to the 16th century.

Who or what is the genesis of that idea in the 16th century?

[Doctor Steuss]

I think one of the fatal flaws in the notion that the BoM was inspired by VotH is that VotH is strongly antiSemitic [...]

It was admittedly a long time ago when I read VotH, but I don't recall this. Do you have some examples handy?

[Mark Beesley]

VotH is not anti-Semitic.

VotH and the BoM came from the same milieu. Whether the BoM was directly inspired by VotH is less relevant than the fact that both drew heavily from common ideas of the time. Ethan Smith did not invent the Indians-are-Hebrews theory; he mostly just summarized and popularized it by quoting from other books and interpreting Isaiah et al. accordingly. The Indian/Hebrews theory goes all the way back to the 16th century.

Absolutely stunning, that people as far back as the 16th century could have had notions about things that were actually true . . . just stunning.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Mark Beesley

[why me]

If you wish to engage in meaningful conversation then you must make some minimal effort to understand the critical position, rather than regurgitating soundbites absorbed from your fellow apologists.

In my other post, I did not refer to you at all. I just made a comment about plagarism. I have no idea what you position was. But my comment was mainly about those critics who still bring up the VofH as a source for Joseph Smith and why that would be problematic.

Sorry you misunderstood.

[Eldwynn]

Absolutely stunning, that people as far back as the 16th century could have had notions about things that were actually true . . . just stunning.

Yes... now if only those pesky anthropologists would just be quiet. Thinking they can use science to say where Native Americans originated from. How absurd! We just need to listen to those old 16th century scholars- genetics be damned!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

We just need to listen to those old 16th century scholars- genetics be damned!

Straw man alert, straw man alert.

[altersteve]

Yes... now if only those pesky anthropologists would just be quiet. Thinking they can use science to say where Native Americans originated from. How absurd! We just need to listen to those old 16th century scholars- genetics be damned!

Obviously the Native Americans "originated from" America. That's why they're called Native Americans. Or do you mean where their ancestors originated from? Because that's completely different.

Edited September 10, 2011 by altersteve