A Question For Apologists And Critics

[inquiringmind]

I just learned of this, and I find it disturbing.

According to Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith, Senior, the father of the Prophet, had the following dream in 1811 when the family was living in Lebanon, New Hampshire. Joseph Smith, Junior, would have been 5 years old at the time. I thought...I was traveling in an open, desolate field, which appeared to be very barren. As I was thus traveling, the thought suddenly came into my mind that I had better stop and reflect upon what I was doing, before I went any further. So I asked myself, "What motive can I have in traveling here, and what place can this be?" My guide, who was by my side, as before, said, "This is the desolate world; but travel on." The road was so broad and barren that I wondered why I should travel in it; for, said I to myself, "Broad is the road, and wide is the gate that leads to death, and many there be that walk therein; but narrow is the way, and straight is the gate that leads to everlasting' life, and few there be that go in thereat." Traveling a short distance farther, I came to a narrow path. This path I entered, and, when I had traveled a little way in it, I beheld a beautiful stream of water, which ran from the east to the west. Of this stream I could see neither the source nor yet the termination; but as far as my eyes could extend I could see a rope running along the bank of it, about as high as a man could reach, and beyond me was a low, but very pleasant valley, in which stood a tree such as I had never seen before. It was exceedingly handsome, insomuch that I looked upon it with wonder and admiration. Its beautiful branches spread themselves somewhat like an umbrella, and it bore a kind of fruit, in shape much like a chestnut bur, and as white as snow, or, if possible whiter. I gazed upon the same with considerable interest, and as I was doing so the burs or shells commenced opening and shedding their particles, or the fruit which they contained, which was of dazzling whiteness. I drew near and began to eat of it, and I found it delicious beyond description. As I was eating, I said in my heart, "I can not eat this alone, I must bring my wife and children, that they may partake with me." Accordingly, I went and brought my family, which consisted of a wife and seven children, and we all commenced eating, and praising God for this blessing. We were exceedingly happy, insomuch that our joy could not easily be expressed. While thus engaged, I beheld a spacious building standing opposite the valley which we were in, and it appeared to reach to the very heavens. It was full of doors and windows, and they were filled with people, who were very finely dressed. When these people observed us in the low valley, under the tree, they pointed the finger of scorn at us, and treated us with all manner of disrespect and contempt. But their contumely we utterly disregarded. I presently turned to my guide, and inquired of him the meaning of the fruit that was so delicious. He told me it was the pure love of God, shed abroad in the hearts of all those who love him, and keep his commandments. He then commanded me to go and bring the rest of my children. I told him that we were all there. "No," he replied, "look yonder, you have two more, and you must bring them also." Upon raising my eyes, I saw two small children, standing some distance off. I immediately went to them, and brought them to the tree; upon which they commenced eating with the rest, and we all rejoiced together. The more we ate, the more we seemed to desire, until we even got down upon our knees, and scooped it up, eating it by double handfuls. After feasting in this manner a short time, I asked my guide what was the meaning of the spacious building which I saw. He replied, "It is Babylon, it is Babylon, and it must fall. The people in the doors and windows are the inhabitants thereof, who scorn and despise the Saints of God because of their humility."

I soon awoke, clapping my hands together for joy.^[

http://en.fairmormon...Lehi%27s_vision

This is quoted from "The Prophet And His Progenitors For Many Generations" (by Lucy Mack Smith), and the web site says.

There are three potential explanations:

1. Joseph Smith plagiarized Joseph Sr.'s dream when he wrote the Book of Mormon. This is the stance adopted by the critics.
   
2. Joseph Sr. had a dream that was similar to the dream experienced by Lehi, and this was a sign to the Prophet's family that he was translating a real record that came from God. This is certainly possible, though it is impossible to prove or disprove by historical techniques, and so will not be elaborated on. It remains, however, a viable option.
   
3. Lucy Mack Smith's account of the dream (which she recorded many years after the fact, when the Book of Mormon account was well-known and published) may have influenced how she remembered and/or recorded her account of Joseph Sr's dream.
   

I'm interested in a couple of things here.

Either Lucy said that this dream was something the family discussed often, or critics make that assumption, and I'd like to know if anyone here has actually read her book?

If the dream was retold to the whole family, and discussed over the years (between 1811 and 1820), I don't see how explanation number two is really a viable option.

How could his dream be a sign to Joseph's father that his son wasn't making the book of Mormon up, if he knew his son knew the details of the dream as well as he did?

Explanation number three would also make less sense if Joseph's father shared this dream with the whole family, year after year.

Does anybody know what Lucy actually wrote about the circumstances of this dream, and her husbands sharing of it?

According to one source, the account of this dream isn't in the original 1844=45 version of Lucy's book, does anyone have any idea why?

And does anyone have any theories as to why God would give Joseph's father a dream so similar to Lehi's dream 29 years before the BOM was published?

Edited April 27, 2012 by inquiringmind

[DBMormon]

I read Lucy's book.

I don't get the feel from her wording in the book that the dream was told over and over again. Obviously thee are similarites in the surface detail of the dream though the BOM tree of Life vision contains as many levels of spiritual insight and inspiration that it goes far above and beyond just Joseph retelling his father's dream in a slightly different way just changing a couple of facts. It is way deeper and more profound then that.... Not sure what to make of it exactly

[altersteve]

I've always held position #2 on this, but I'd like to see what others have to say about it.

[rodheadlee]

I pick door 2. Why? Becasue I have had my own revelations that the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints was in fact Jesus Christ's church and that the ordinance of eternal marriage is true.

[Calm]

If the dream was retold to the whole family, and discussed over the years (between 1811 and 1820), I don't see how explanation number two is really a viable option.

While perhaps it might not be used as a sign, is there any reason why God can't reveal the same thing to more than one person? It would seem perfectly okay according to precedent. One has right there Nephi receiving the same dream as his father and then his experience is expanded. Why couldn't the same thing happen to JS Sr. and the expanded understanding that is revealed by Joseph through the BoM? (of course this assumes the BoM is actually what it is claimed for it, what I am saying is if you are comfortable accepting the possibility of it happening to Nephi and Lehi, why not accept the same possibility for Joseph Jr. and Sr.?) Edited April 28, 2012 by calmoriah

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I've always thought of it as a mixture of numbers two and three. That is, Joseph Smith Senior had a very similar dream that helped prepare him for the Book of Mormon, and the translation of the Book of Mormon retroactively influenced the stylistic telling of the earlier dream to be even closer to the Book of Mormon's language. (Nibley had an article on it way back in the Melchizedek Priesthood Manual he wrote in '57, but it's been awhile since I've read it and it might be of dubious value after the fifty-five years of historical research that's been done since then. Still, for what it's worth.)

Incidentally, before I had read the Book of Mormon, I myself had two very similar dreams involving a Tree of Life. The point is, lots of people have probably had very similar dreams (see Eliade's work on Shamanism), but the language used to describe them can be influenced by external cultural factors.

[Xander]

Possibility #4:

Joseph Smith wasn't consciously borrowing from his Father's dream. I mean that's a possibility, right? When writing the Book of Mormon narrative years later, he was incorporating elements of a dream he heard as a child. After all, he never drew a later connection with his translation and what would have to be considered evidence of revelation by his Father. The Book of Mormon story wasn't created in a vacuum, but neither was it based on historical events of the Ancient Americans. The more probable explanation is that Joseph Smith incorporated all sorts of ideas together in one story, and the critics have been pointing to a growing body of evidence for this.

For example, this notion that the Indians came from Israel was quite popular in his day. Coincidence?

The same is true of the Book of Abraham as well. After learning enough Hebrew in 1836 to preach on the plural nature of elohim, suddenly all subsequent scripture (i.e. Abr 4:1) says it was the "gods" who were involved in creation. Coincidence?

Is it just a coincidence that Joseph Smith incorporates all sorts of themes and ideas from books we know he owned?

For believers yes. For everyone else, it is a no-brainer that it isn't just a coincidence. For TBMs there is always room for belief so long as room can be made for "possible coincidence." Of course this kind of thinking generally resonates with those who were raised up in the faith and really know of no other way to make sense of reality if they thought for a second that it was possible the Church wasn't true.

Apologists find comfort in "possibilities" that all of these things are mere coincidence but critics reject this using inductive reasoning, pointing out that however "possible" it may be, it still remains highly unlikely. And with every new "coincidence" uncovered by the critics, the stronger their case becomes. For example, it is possible that you can flip a coin and it land on "heads". You have a 50% chance. Apologists seem to approach every single controversial issue with this mentality, and so if there is a 50-50 chance, then that is more than enough for faith to work its magic. But the problem is that with a few dozen problems with LDS truth claims, you'd have to flip a coin a few dozen times and expect it to land on heads every time. Now what are the chances of that? It is entirely unrealistic to expect that, and the problem is much worse when you actually catalog all the points raised by the critics, which really number into the hundreds, not dozens.

[inquiringmind]

One has right there Nephi receiving the same dream as his father and then his experience is expanded.

I'd forgotten that.

Why couldn't the same thing happen to JS Sr. and the expanded understanding that is revealed by Joseph through the BoM?

That's a very good point, thank you.

Incidentally, before I had read the Book of Mormon, I myself had two very similar dreams involving a Tree of Life.

Similar to one another, or similar to Lehi's and Joseph Senior's dreams?

Could you tell us more?

Edited April 28, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Tepui]

Lehi's and Joseph Smith Sr.'s dreams differ. Lehi lost two sons-who wouldn't come to the Tree. Joseph Smith Sr. was told he would have more children.

The dream was personalized. Joseph Smith Jr. didn't use his father's dream "to write" it in the Book of Mormon.

And don't forget Asael Smith's prophecy.

[Sky]

I don't find this the least bit disturbing. To me it is clear that Joseph Smith Sr. had some prophetic and spiritual gifts, even though he was not "the prophet" in the same sense that his son was to become. Apparently Joseph Smith Sr. was not bothered by the fact of a very similar dream being a part of the Book of Mormon. God can reveal the same concepts to more than one person. I take it as a sign of God's love and "tender mercies."

[inquiringmind]

And don't forget Asael Smith's prophecy.

Asael Smith's prophecy?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Similar to one another, or similar to Lehi's and Joseph Senior's dreams?

Lehi's. I don't want to go into too much detail (they were idiosyncratically personal enough to be completely boring for anyone who isn't me), but the gist was that I was on a dark empty beach (I'm from Hawaii, and that's the equivalent of a desolate, barren land *grin*), and felt drawn to an enormous tree, etc.

As I said, it is in all likelihood a common archetypal image that primates (descended from animals who once lived in trees, whose

) are simply hardwired to receive and personalize -- again, search for 'Tree of Life' in Eliade's stuff on Shamanism.

What prompts the image is the interesting part. Critics find comfort in "possibilities" and decide that they have sufficient environmental evidence to reconstruct Brother Joseph's subjective mental processes while he was dictating the Book of Mormon, but they're certainly not being at all scientific about an event so decidedly inaccessible to reproducible experimentation.

Personally, I don't think it's a "coincidence" at all that the Book of Mormon would be brought back at a time when people were seriously considering the idea of transoceanic migrations (which, I might add, is a far more open-minded stance than the groundless lockstep refusal of some historians to even consider the possibility of pre-Columbian contact, despite evidence gathered by folks like Sorenson and Stubbs).

Same reason it's no "coincidence" that while the folks in the burned-over district and William Blake and Swedenborg and Wordsworth and all the other madmen of that era were yearning for contact with the other world, God was reaching out an anthropomorphic hand to meet them halfway. Same reason it's absolutely not a "coincidence" that revelations only come when we're doing our best to diligently seek learning, even by studying out the Words of Wisdom from the "best books." (D&C 88:118, 109:7,14)

Edited April 28, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Tepui]

Asael Smith's prophecy?

Asael Smith - Joseph Smith Sr.s Father:

http://chapmanresearch.org/PDF/The%20%20Joseph%20Smith%20Senior%201830%20Mission%20To%20See%20His%20Father%20Asa.pdf

He fought in the Revolutionary War:

http://www.fold3.com/page/888_revolutionary_war_rolls_asael_smith/

Maybe Xander can also use that as an excuse as to why that War was mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Because Joseph Smith sat on his grandfather's knee who told him all about it !

Heaven forbid the Book of Mormon talks of things Joseph Smith may already have heard of, such as a dream, or speculation that the "Indians" were of the Lost Tribes, or prophesied of events which occurred in the very land in which they lived, in which was found the gold plates - such as the Revolutionary War fought against their Mother Gentiles. No. The Book of Mormon should have witnessed of a location far removed from the Prophet Joseph Smith. Then we would surely know he wasn't making it up.

Does the Book of Mormon had to have occurred on Mars for people to believe it, to counter the argument that Joseph wrote it from his knowledge of the area in which he lived?

[Kevin Christensen]

Compare Wilfred Griggs here, on the Orphic Gold plates:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=110&chapid=1278

John Welch here, on the Narrative of Zosiumus:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=193

Yours truly here, on various archetypal appearances in many different cultures:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=2&num=1&id=16

Lehi's account of the iron rod, and many people being lost in mists of darkness, and falling into the filthy river echoes many of the medieval "Test Bridge" accounts in Zaleski.³⁶ Common motifs in the medieval visionary literature include the "river of hell, the flowery meadows of paradise, the white-clothed throngs in heaven, the test-bridge."³⁷ According to Zaleski, the test bridge of medieval vision literature "symbolizes safe passage" across the river but also "intensifies the dangers of crossing otherworld boundaries. Whoever sets foot on its narrow planks is singled out for the attention of forces seeking the soul's downfall."³⁸ The righteous "cross easily to the meadows on the opposite shore while the unjust lose their footing and fall."³⁹ The iron rod in Lehi's vision performs a symbolic function equivalent to the test bridge of medieval visions.

Combinations of symbols in some of the judgment scenes in Beyond Death⁴⁰ also invite comparison with Lehi's dream. Despite the different cultures—Aztec, medieval Christian, Haitian, Zoroastrian, and Buddhist—we recognize the filthy rivers as boundary and obstacle, test bridges, symbols of heaven and hell, trees of life, and the judgments of wicked and the just.

Daniel Peterson here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=9&num=2&id=223

Allison Von Feldt here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=639

And here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=9&chapterID=74

And consider Nibley, here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=73&chapid=886

The Book of Mormon critics have made an art of explaining a very big whole by a very small part. The game is to look for some mysterious person or document from which Joseph Smith might have got the few simple and obvious ideas and then cry triumphantly, "At last we have it! Now we know where the Book of Mormon came from!"

"If someone will only show me how to draw a circle," cries the youthful Joseph Smith, "I will make you a fine Swiss watch!" So Joachim or Anselm or Ethan Smith or Rabelais or somebody takes a stick and draws a circle in the sand, and forthwith the adroit and wily Joseph turns out a beautifully running mechanism that tells perfect time!

This is not an exaggeration. The Book of Mormon in structure and design is every bit as complicated, involved, and ingenious as the works of a Swiss watch, and withal just as smoothly running. With no model to follow and no instruction of any kind (Where was the model? Who could instruct?), the writer of that book brought together thousands of ideas and events and knit them together in a most marvelous unity. Yet the critics like to think they have explained the Book of Mormon completely if they can just discover where Joseph Smith might have got one of his ideas or expressions!

And Nibley has discussed the distinctive setting of Joseph Smith Sr. dreaming of fallen timbers, versus the deserts of Lehi. The archetypes appear in different cultural contexts. So it is not the archetypal images, but the distinctive cultural context that should be the most telling.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

So it is not the archetypal images, but the distinctive cultural context that should be the most telling.

FTW. Peterson and Von Feldt are particularly good.

Also, I'm not sure I made it quite clear in my earlier posts that I side with the diffusionists when analyzing the cultural context. The underlying archetypal images are, I think, powerful for biological reasons, but in detail they are very much dependent on the culture, and specific distinctive cultural elements must obviously arise from contact with those cultures. The Tree of Life dream in the Book of Mormon, while it may be similar to dreams had by any number of people including Smith Senior and, uh, me, is in detail a record of an authentic ancient milieu. Hamblin has a good paper (Joseph or Jung?) on the efficacy of parallelisms, which challenges the critical view that it is just "coincidence."

[why me]

I just learned of this, and I find it disturbing.

We need to put ourselves in lucy's position during the winter of 1844-45. She just lost two sons and was suffering much. This was very difficult for her to handle and she suffered from it for the rest of her life as did emma. We need to take all this into account as she relates her stories not just here but later in her book about the prophet. Most mothers would be devastated and unable to relate the story at all without undue emotional pain.

This being said, we need to cut lucy some slack. We need tor remember that the father was one of the eight witnesses. He certainly would have recognized his dream in the book. But it had no effect on him. Why? Either we are missing something or else both lucy and her husband were in on a huge fraud.

[why me]

FTW. Peterson and Von Feldt are particularly good.

Also, I'm not sure I made it quite clear in my earlier posts that I side with the diffusionists when analyzing the cultural context. The underlying archetypal images are, I think, powerful for biological reasons, but in detail they are very much dependent on the culture, and specific distinctive cultural elements must obviously arise from contact with those cultures. The Tree of Life dream in the Book of Mormon, while it may be similar to dreams had by any number of people including Smith Senior and, uh, me, is in detail a record of an authentic ancient milieu. Hamblin has a good paper (Joseph or Jung?) on the efficacy of parallelisms, which challenges the critical view that it is just "coincidence."

We need to look into the emotional pain that Lucy would be experiencing at that time of winter 1844-45 and the bitterness she must have been feeling after losing two sons so violently without their murderers being brought to justice. Poor lucy lost many sons to the faith Retelling a story just may be a bit confusing as one with such a frame of mind goes back in time.

[Robert F. Smith]

I just learned of this, and I find it disturbing.

http://en.fairmormon...Lehi%27s_vision

This is quoted from "The Prophet And His Progenitors For Many Generations" (by Lucy Mack Smith), and the web site says.

I'm interested in a couple of things here.

Either Lucy said that this dream was something the family discussed often, or critics make that assumption, and I'd like to know if anyone here has actually read her book?

If the dream was retold to the whole family, and discussed over the years (between 1811 and 1820), I don't see how explanation number two is really a viable option.

How could his dream be a sign to Joseph's father that his son wasn't making the book of Mormon up, if he knew his son knew the details of the dream as well as he did?

Explanation number three would also make less sense if Joseph's father shared this dream with the whole family, year after year.

Does anybody know what Lucy actually wrote about the circumstances of this dream, and her husbands sharing of it?

According to one source, the account of this dream isn't in the original 1844=45 version of Lucy's book, does anyone have any idea why?

And does anyone have any theories as to why God would give Joseph's father a dream so similar to Lehi's dream 29 years before the BOM was published?

Lucy Mack Smith's autobiography has been published many times, often edited in widely varying fashion. The best, most complete source is Lavina F. Anderson, ed., Lucy's Book: A Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith's Family Memoir (Signature Books, 2001). Lucy began her memoir in 1844-45, and was then assisted by Martha Jane and Howard Coray in polishing her account.

Joseph Smith Sr had a lot of dreams/visions, and the one you quote accords well with the Pratt/Coray 1853 version. That vision is indeed strikingly reminiscent of the dream/visions of Lehi & Nephi. However, such dream-visions were quite common among future leaders of the LDS Restoration movement long before they had met or heard of Joseph Smith Jr.

For example, on the same night, at separate locations, Brigham and Miriam Young, John and Fanny Young, Heber and Vilate Kimball, and John and Rhoda Greene all experienced an extraordinary heavenly vision, as noted by Daniel Peterson in Sunstone, 4/2 (Mar-April 1979), 31. The "Prophet" Robert Mason also had a vision around 1800, and subsequently told young Wilford Woodruff about it and promised him that he would taste of the fruit of the tree in that vision, but that Mason would not. You can read an account of the Father Mason vision in David Boone, "Prepared for the Restoration," Ensign, Dec 1984, along with similar accounts by others. Here is an excerpt:

Wilford Woodruff, who later became President of the Church, had an impressive experience early in life that led him to look forward to the Restoration. An elderly gentleman, Robert Mason, with whom he often visited, told him about a strange vision he had received years earlier. “I was carried away in a vision,” the old man told him, “and found myself in the midst of a vast orchard of fruit trees. I became hungry and wandered through this vast orchard searching for fruit to eat, but I found none. While I stood in amazement finding no fruit in the midst of so many trees, they began to fall to the ground as if torn up by a whirlwind. They continued to fall until there was not a tree standing in the whole orchard. I immediately saw thereafter shoots springing up from the roots and forming themselves into young and beautiful trees. These budded, blossomed, and brought forth fruit which ripened and was the most beautiful to look upon of anything my eyes had ever beheld. I stretched forth my hand and plucked some of the fruit. I gazed upon it with delight; but when I was about to eat of it, the vision closed and I did not taste the fruit.”

At the conclusion of the vision, Mr. Mason had prayed that the Lord would give him the interpretation. “Then the voice of the Lord came to me saying: ‘Son of man, thou hast sought me diligently to know the truth concerning my Church and Kingdom among men. This is to show you that my Church is not organized among men in the generation to which you belong; but in the days of your children the Church and Kingdom of God shall be made manifest with all the gifts and the blessings enjoyed by the Saints in past ages. You shall live to be made acquainted with it, but shall not partake of its blessings before you depart this life. You will be blest of the Lord after death because you have followed the dictation of my Spirit in this life.’”

Then the elderly gentleman looked at the young man and made an unusual prophecy: “Wilford, I shall never partake of this fruit in the flesh, but you will and you will become a conspicuous actor in the new kingdom.”

3

[Kevin Christensen]

Jess Groesbeck wrote a useful paper on "The Smiths: There Dreams and Visions."

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/064-22-29.pdf

And as long as critics get to discuss sources at a very high level of abstraction, as Xander does here, not mentioning interesting details such as the differences between the Lost 10 Tribes theory, and the multiple migrations of expressly not the 10 tribes account in the Book of Mormon, it's easy to sound plausible and reasonable. But the specifics involve differences that make a difference, and should not be covered up by abstraction and over-generalization. For instance, Andrew Hedges observes here:

A close reading of View of the Hebrews suggests that, while some aspects of this reconstruction could be debated, it is generally so complex as to be quite inflexible, based as it is on a relatively conservative reading of the biblical text and a number of suppositions so interdependent that if one should prove false, the whole model would collapse. Any modifications would have to be relatively small and insignificant, which explains why the basic outlines of the model remained virtually unchanged over the course of two centuries' worth of discussion. For example, churchmen over the centuries could (and did) debate how much of the Mosaic law the Indians as the lost tribes had retained after arriving in America. They could do this because such debates did not alter in the least the basic structure of the paradigm, which posited a pre-Christian migration of Israelites who had some knowledge of Old Testament practices. The churchmen did not, however, at any time debate the possibility that the Indians' ancestors knew of Christ's birth before the event, had engaged in such New Testament practices as baptism in Old Testament times, and had been visited by Christ after his resurrection. This was because the mere suggestion of these things would have done violence to their understanding of the Bible, contemporary evidence from Indian cultures themselves, and other parts of the model. For such a suggestion to be true in the context of early America's understanding of the Bible, for example, the Indians' ancestors would have to have been believing Christians who left the Old World after the time of Christ, since early American scholarship emphatically held that the ancient Israelites completely misunderstood their own messianic prophecies and that ordinances like baptism had not been practiced in Old Testament times.⁵ This reconstruction would have flown in the face of all existing anthropological evidence, however—none of the practices in the native cultures studied resembled New Testament practices—and, unlike the lost tribes thesis, had no basis in scripture. Given the parameters in which they had to work, the suggestion that the Indians' ancestors engaged in New Testament practices would have created rather than solved problems and would have required an entirely new reconstruction of events—based on a new reading of the text and other evidence—to be taken seriously. In short, keeping with our example, either the suggestion that the Indians' ancestors practiced baptism or the model proposed by Adair, Smith, and others would have to be false; they could not both be true, nor—and this is important—could the former be considered an unimportant, inconsequential, and perfectly logical modification of the latter.

The Book of Mormon, of course, makes precisely this claim about baptism, along with several others that likewise cannot be reconciled with the nineteenth-century model explaining Indian origins.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_books&vol=9&num=1&id=247

The only way to make comparisons of Joseph Smith Sr.'s dream and the Lost 10 Tribes theories seem like viable and decisive sources for the Book of Mormon is to ignore the differences, and to refuse to engage the issue of whether the book actually fits the ancient contexts and settings that it claims for itself. If you take a balance scale, and put Lucy's later retelling on one side, and neglect to put the specific cultural comparisons offered in, say, Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem on the other, you can smirk with satisfaction as the balance scale tips your way. That is what happens when the balance is manipulated, rather explored.

Call for specific references of specific books known to be owned by Joseph Smith during the production of the Book of Mormon sufficient to account for the details highlighted in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem. Or even one that hypothesizes that a group from Jerusalem 600 BCE, of the lineage of Joseph, (NOT the 10 tribes), brought 1st Temple Judaism to the New World, some descendants of whom settled in the only river in the Western Hemisphere that matches the detailed description of the Sidon at a location which just happens to be at the interface of two language groups, and has proper and plausible location and time frame relative to cities of cement, and another site on the west bank of a river known to be unoccupied and able to account for the experience of Limhi's explorers. Abstractions are cheap. Details cost.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[why me]

I just learned of this, and I find it disturbing.

As you can see there is very little reason to be disturbed. Maybe you should relax and have faith that all is well. It is always good to see the positive too.

[altersteve]

For example, this notion that the Indians came from Israel was quite popular in his day. Coincidence?

The same is true of the Book of Abraham as well. After learning enough Hebrew in 1836 to preach on the plural nature of elohim, suddenly all subsequent scripture (i.e. Abr 4:1) says it was the "gods" who were involved in creation. Coincidence?

I don't think these are coincidences at all. In fact, they strengthen my faith more than anything. It depends on the perspective you look at things like this from.