A Challenge To Evangelical Critics: How Do You Explain This Coincidence?

[inquiringmind]

I know some Catholic monks collected and published some native American legends, but I don't know how many of their works were widely available in English prior to 1820.

Could Joseph Smith have been aware of this legend in 1820?

The second age, the suri of air, terminated with a great hurricane which swept away trees, rocks, houses, and people, although many men and women escaped, chiefly such as took refuge in caves which the hurricane could not reach. After several days the survivors came out to find a multitude of apes living in the land; and all this time they were in darkness, seeing neither the sun nor moon. The next event recorded, although Yeytia makes it precede the hurricane, is the stopping of the sun for a whole day in his course, as at the command of Joshua in the mythology of the Old World. "When the mosquito, however, saw the sun thus suspended and pensive, he addressed him saying, Lord of the world, why art thou thus motionless, and doest not thy duty as is commanded thee ? Dost thou wish to destroy the world as is thy wont ? Then seeing that he was yet silent and made no response, the insect went up and stung him in the leg, whereupon he, feeling himself stung, started anew on his accustomed coarse." Next occurred an earthquake which swallowed up and destroyed all the Quinames, or giants at least all those who lived in the coast regions together with many of the Toltecs and of their neighbors the Chichimecs. After the destruction of these Philistines, " being at peace with all this new world, all the wise Toltecs, both the astrologers and those of other arts, assembled in Huehue TJapallan, the chief city of their dominion, where they treated of many things, the calamities they had suffered and the movements of the heavens since the creation of the world, and of many other things, which on account of their histories having been burned, have not been ascertained further than what has been written here, among which they added the bissextile to regulate the solar vear with the equinox, and many other curiosities as will be seen in their tables and arrangement of years, months, weeks, days, signs, and planets as they understood them." One hundred and sixteen years after this regulation or invention of the Toltec calendar, "the sun and moon were eclipsed, the earth shook, and the rocks were rent asunder, and many other things and signs happened, though there was no loss of life. This was in the year Ce Calli, which, the chronology being reduced to our systems, proves to be the same date when Christ our Lord suffered" (33 A.D.)

http://www.archive.org/stream/nativeraces05bancrich/nativeraces05bancrich_djvu.txt

The similarity between this and the events recorded in 3 Nephi seems like quite a coincidence unless Joseph could have read of this in some English book that was circulating around 1830.

Does any critic know if this information was available in English at the time?

[CASteinman]

It appears to me that his works were published in the 1600's, but in Spanish. I am not sure if they were ever published in a way that Joseph Smith would have had access to them and I believe that the earliest potentially English recording of any of his works would have been "Antiquities of Mexico" volume 9 by Lord Kingsborough, published in 1831 -- apparently in London.

[cdowis]

It appears to me that his works were published in the 1600's, but in Spanish. I am not sure if they were ever published in a way that Joseph Smith would have had access to them and I believe that the earliest potentially English recording of any of his works would have been "Antiquities of Mexico" volume 9 by Lord Kingsborough, published in 1831 -- apparently in London.

If JS were aware of such names as Paanchi, sheum, Pahoran, he certainly could read a Spanish language book published in 1600 in his library at Palmyra.

OR, it was just a coincidence.

Edited May 25, 2012 by cdowis

[CASteinman]

If JS were aware of such names as Paanchi, sheum, Pahoran, he certainly could read a Spanish language book published in 1600 in his library at Palmyra.

OR, it was just a coincidence.

I confess to confusion.

How are the names relevant to Spanish books? I don't understand?

How would his knowing the names make him able to read an old Spanish Book?

Not trying to be churlish -- I don't understand what you are saying.

I don't think that Palmyra is likely to have had obscure 200 year old Spanish books. But who knows?

[Calm]

I know some Catholic monks collected and published some native American legends, but I don't know how many of their works were widely available in English prior to 1820.

Could Joseph Smith have been aware of this legend in 1820?

http://www.archive.org/stream/nativeraces05bancrich/nativeraces05bancrich_djvu.txt

The similarity between this and the events recorded in 3 Nephi seems like quite a coincidence unless Joseph could have read of this in some English book that was circulating around 1830.

Does any critic know if this information was available in English at the time?

One needs to be careful when reading native legends transcribed by the Spanish as they often filtered or alter the stories through their own Christian bias. Knowing what were the actual legends based on Spanish records is difficult. I believe Brant Gardner has discussed this on the board.

[rodheadlee]

Why should it be surprising when there are legends that resemble the truth? I would expect to find many legends among the various peoples/tribes of the Americas marking the visit of Jesus Christ.

[Robert F. Smith]

If JS were aware of such names as Paanchi, sheum, Pahoran, he certainly could read a Spanish language book published in 1600 in his library at Palmyra.

OR, it was just a coincidence.

Perhaps you have in mind the library at Manchester, and we have a list of many of the volumes in that library. See Robert Paul, "Joseph Smith and the Manchester (New York) Library," BYU Studies, 22/3 (1982), 1-26, online at https://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5537 . However, the volume you seek wasn't there so far as we can tell.

[3DOP]

The coincidence seems obscure. I am not sure I see anything very remarkable here. But it isn't necessary to explain. For the sake of argument, let us grant that these writings show that Joseph Smith knew what could not have been known to him naturally.

If I were an "evangelical critic" (are those the only non-Mormons who might need to care about LDS claims?), I would point out examples from Scriptural, Catholic, and other histories which demonstrate conclusively that men and women unworthy of emulation are sometimes permitted to receive preternatural insights into past or future events. They might even be able to perform what appears to be miraculous. From Scripture I would argue that Balaam fits this description. From Catholic history I would probably mention St. Bridget of Sweden and the children of Fatima. I would have to consult Gary North's work, "Unholy Spirits" to remind myself of apparent prophecies and miracles performed by spiritualists and others with no claim whatsoever to Christianity.

Since about 2000 or 2001, as a Catholic, I have abandoned the position that The Book of Mormon must be either explained away naturally, or that the claims of the Restoration are true. I incline to the view that Mormons would not believe the book to be a proof that Joseph Smith was God's prophet, unless the inexplicable is present. However, there is no way that I can be convinced that Mormonism alone is privy to the inexplicable. The important precedent of the false prophet Balaam, who tells the future accurately, makes us know that in addition to the necessary prophecies and miracles which will accompany the true faith, there are other important qualities which must be discerned before we may be confident in the morals, doctrines, and any ecclesiastical claims of every particular seer.

Remembering that the meaning of "Christ" is "anointed one", if I were an evangelical critic, I would continue to point out what Jesus Himself said in regards to those who claim to be Christs/Anointed Ones:

And Jesus answering, said to them: Take heed that no man seduce you: For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many.

---Mt. 24:4, 5

Those claiming to come from God will trick many, says Jesus. But how would they do this? Would it be through vain philosophies and rhetorical propaganda? Not really. Jesus explains why many will be seduced:

For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.

---Mt. 24:24

Now as an evangelical critic, it is possible that I would be hesitant to use this particular passage because many of my fellow evangelicals believe, though not all, that these kinds of event would only occur after the so-called rapture, during what they call "the Tribulation Age". Nevertheless, I would point out the practical fact that Jesus was speaking directly to a question addressed to him by the Apostles. Even though some specific events (astronomical phenomena for instance) didn't occur in their lifetimes, he warned the Apostles themselves not to be seduced, and from that we may learn that even though spiritual confusion is intensified towards the end of the age, we must know for all times and history that signs and wonders are sometimes incompatible with the truth of God.

3DOP

Edited May 26, 2012 by 3DOP

[CASteinman]

The coincidence seems obscure. I am not sure I see anything very remarkable here. But it isn't necessary to explain. For the sake of argument, let us grant that these writings show that Joseph Smith knew what could not have been known to him naturally.

3DOP

As far as I can tell, your post was not really about the Book of Mormon or even evidences about the Book of Mormon, but rather about presenting your view and justification that he was a false prophet.

Why not start that as a new thread instead of taking this one off track?

[3DOP]

As far as I can tell, your post was not really about the Book of Mormon or even evidences about the Book of Mormon, but rather about presenting your view and justification that he was a false prophet.

Why not start that as a new thread instead of taking this one off track?

Hi CASteinman.

I see what you mean, though I must say I intended no disrespect. It was my wish to demonstrate that there are more than merely two options with regards to the Book of Mormon, a deliberate deception, or truth from God. It seems very unlikely that I could conclude that Joseph Smith was a deliberate deceiver. I think any respectful and fruitful dialogue would ordinarily begin at that point.

However, many non-Mormons probably hold that the Book of Mormon was a deliberate deception and it is understandable that you would want to concentrate on that claim. Anyway, please accept my apologies and carry on with your discussion without distraction.

Regards,

3DOP

[CASteinman]

. It was my wish to demonstrate that there are more than merely two options with regards to the Book of Mormon, a deliberate deception, or truth from God. It seems very unlikely that I could conclude that Joseph Smith was a deliberate deceiver. I think any respectful and fruitful dialogue would ordinarily begin at that point.

However, many non-Mormons probably hold that the Book of Mormon was a deliberate deception and it is understandable that you would want to concentrate on that claim.

So, in essence, you are saying that supernatural causes for related physical events do not mean the Book of Mormon is true and that if Joseph Smith somehow knew these things -- it may mean that he was not a deceiver but that he was himself deceived. By a supernatural source, right?

(That kinda relates to this topic I think)

[Robert F. Smith]

For the sake of argument, let us grant that these writings show that Joseph Smith knew what could not have been known to him naturally.

If I were an "evangelical critic" (are those the only non-Mormons who might need to care about LDS claims?), I would point out examples from Scriptural, Catholic, and other histories which demonstrate conclusively that men and women unworthy of emulation are sometimes permitted to receive preternatural insights into past or future events.

Since about 2000 or 2001, as a Catholic, I have abandoned the position that The Book of Mormon must be either explained away naturally, or that the claims of the Restoration are true. I incline to the view that Mormons would not believe the book to be a proof that Joseph Smith was God's prophet, unless the inexplicable is present. However, there is no way that I can be convinced that Mormonism alone is privy to the inexplicable.

3DOP,

How then are we (any of us) to discern truth about anything? If the preternatural and inexplicable can present itself in nearly any tradition or among nearly any people, how can we differentiate the ultimate truth from falsehood? What sort of epistemology do you recommend?

[3DOP]

So, in essence, you are saying that supernatural causes for related physical events do not mean the Book of Mormon is true and that if Joseph Smith somehow knew these things -- it may mean that he was not a deceiver but that he was himself deceived. By a supernatural source, right?

(That kinda relates to this topic I think)

Hi again Steinman.

Thank you for your reply. I hope you will forgive what may appear to be hairsplits in what follows.

I do not hold that any activity, except they have their origin in God's command may be said to be strictly speaking, supernatural. In the natural order of things, angelic beings have abilities that so exceed material creation, that they can be mistaken as supernatural. That is why I referred in my first post to the "preternatural", and referred again to "apparent signs and wonders". Webster's New World Dictionary defines the preternatural in its first entry as "differing from or beyond what is normally found in or expected from nature". The second entry is one word: "supernatural".

For many the two words are synonyms, and I acknowledge that meaning, as I think Mormons ordinarily use it. It is not incorrect. But it might be imprecise. Christians such as myself believe that the angels especially, whether they are good or bad, have been endowed by nature with powers beyond our understanding. It is important for us who believe that to put all of their activity in the realm of what is natural for them even if it appears supernatural according to our perception. Only God is not bound by nature and for that reason, I am reluctant to attribute to every inexplicable event, a supernatural cause. Thus, the need for a third word, preternatural to more precisely explain my belief, regarding events which have neither their origin in material creation as we know it, nor in God.

So in essence, you have summarized my position, especially if one accepts that preternatural and supernatural activities are synonymous. I am satisfied to leave it at that.

I remain open to arguments, but I am skeptical when it comes to the idea that non-Mormons can adequately explain LDS origins from strictly natural, or should I say, human causes. For what it may be worth, that is why I tried to offer evidence to show that the Gospel is perhaps compatible with the notion that there are signs and wonders which come from God, and signs and wonders which don't. If that is the case, as you pointed out, it probably goes beyond the original question of the original post. I have no wish to push my theories further in this thread or a new one except with those who might find some reason to oppose them or have questions to ask.

God bless,

3DOP

[3DOP]

3DOP,

How then are we (any of us) to discern truth about anything? If the preternatural and inexplicable can present itself in nearly any tradition or among nearly any people, how can we differentiate the ultimate truth from falsehood? What sort of epistemology do you recommend?

Hi Robert F. Smith,

Thanks for your interest.

I think it is very important to establish first of all, that signs and wonders follow the teaching and establishment of the Gospel. Jesus clearly performed miracles so that His claims could be believed. I do not suggest that signs and wonders are universal or even nearly so. I tend to think for instance, that many evangelical claims suffer from a general lack of evidence for any possible supernatural intervention. The field narrows by excluding those who deny the need for continuing signs of God's good pleasure.

Those with a testimony of the death, burial, and risen Jesus Christ will have eliminated many modern communities from possibility. I would suggest that major ecclesiastical groups in the English speaking world that remain would include Mormons, Catholics, and Pentecostals. I would also include the Bahai Faith, because their origins are very impressive and they accept the New Testament. I ask forgiveness of any who would wish to be included in the list. It is enough to me if you claim that you have miracles and believe in them.

We know the tree by the fruit. Jesus says that we would distinguish the true from the false by the fruits of the prophets. We will have difficulty agreeing on who has the most glorious fruits because our appreciation is often lacking toward other communities. But it seems worthwhile if we can agree that ultimately, we have to try to discern without prejudice, whose teachings and practices lead to the best and most desirable behavior. This means that we don't judge Mormonism based on disobedient Mormons. We don't judge Catholicism based on disobedient Catholics. We judge all trees (religions) according to its members whose lives are vigorously deriving from the tree. We are often deceived about the relative goodness of truth claims because we tend to judge other trees/religions based on their unhealthiest branches/members.

We all want to be happy. Where is joy? Where is heaven on earth? Where is unfeigned generosity and love? I have used the word supernatural carefully on this thread. Once I have believed in them, I am not looking for physical miracles in the skies or in the depths of the earth. Those established, I am looking for miracles of grace...supernatural behavior that transcends the natural order of things. Love that is farther above a pleasant temperament (May God be blessed for those too!), than a man is above a stone. The divine nature in us, moving us, changing us, conforming us to the image of God. More than loving those who love us. Love that suffers, love that perseveres, love that never ceases growing, love that is inexplicable, love of our enemies...miraculous, supernatural love is the fruit that derives from the cross of Jesus Christ, the true tree of everlasting life.

I do not pretend to be such an example myself. I am only too self-willed to want anyone scrutinizing me. But I am confident that if I want to be holy, I know what to do. Signs and wonders in the skies and depths followed by supernatural signs and wonders in the hearts of men are the epistemology that lead to God.

3DOP

Edited May 26, 2012 by 3DOP

[Robert F. Smith]

I think it is very important to establish first of all, that signs and wonders follow the teaching and establishment of the Gospel. Jesus clearly performed miracles so that His claims could be believed. I do not suggest that signs and wonders are universal or even nearly so. I tend to think for instance, that many evangelical claims suffer from a general lack of evidence for any possible supernatural intervention. The field narrows by excluding those who deny the need for continuing signs of God's good pleasure.

Those with a testimony of the death, burial, and risen Jesus Christ will have eliminated many modern communities from possibility. I would suggest that major ecclesiastical groups in the English speaking world that remain would include Mormons, Catholics, and Pentecostals. I would also include the Bahai Faith, because their origins are very impressive and they accept the New Testament. I ask forgiveness of any who would wish to be included in the list. It is enough to me if you claim that you have miracles and believe in them.

Signs and wonders in the skies and depths followed by supernatural signs and wonders in the hearts of men are the epistemology that lead to God.

3DOP

Thank you for your very poetic and broadminded comments, some of which I have snipped out in order to focus on epistemology.

Do you therefore feel that an example of "supernatural signs and wonders in the hearts of men" might be the Holy Ghost? I have heard a number of evangelicals say that the Holy Spirit "led" them to do something, or that they had a powerful, personal experience in which they were "saved" or "born again." Is this the sort of thing which you have in mind?

[cinepro]

I know some Catholic monks collected and published some native American legends, but I don't know how many of their works were widely available in English prior to 1820.

Could Joseph Smith have been aware of this legend in 1820?

http://www.archive.o...ncrich_djvu.txt

The similarity between this and the events recorded in 3 Nephi seems like quite a coincidence unless Joseph could have read of this in some English book that was circulating around 1830.

Does any critic know if this information was available in English at the time?

There might be one English book that mentions some of these things around that time...

No talking mosquitoes though.

[thesometimesaint]

I know of one map that has the name Naham on it. However it is a rather obscure map, While it is possible for JS to have seen it(no evidence that he did) JS did give a description its nature and where from the Lehites went to Bountiful. Those were not available to JS at the time of publication of the BoM.

[3DOP]

Thank you for your very poetic and broadminded comments, some of which I have snipped out in order to focus on epistemology.

Do you therefore feel that an example of "supernatural signs and wonders in the hearts of men" might be the Holy Ghost? I have heard a number of evangelicals say that the Holy Spirit "led" them to do something, or that they had a powerful, personal experience in which they were "saved" or "born again." Is this the sort of thing which you have in mind?

Hi again Robert.

What you mention is not really what I have in mind as being valuable epistemologically. No. A powerful personal experience is of great blessing to an individual, but it is not a testimony to God's work in a soul if it does not result in wonderful acts of supernatural charity toward God and neighbor. Jesus said we have to love God first. But our neighbor too. Although we are motivated interiorly, it is God's will that we love others outwardly who are not naturally lovable. How will men know we are Jesus' disciples? By our love. And without a hint of pomp, show, or egoism, if God's love reigns in a soul, it will not be hidden.

It is natural for a parent to love a child and die for it, for a soldier to love his country and to die for it. Such virtue is good and honorable, but it can not seem a miracle when many lower animals instinctively nurture their young with warmth and affection. Catholics believe we have been wounded by the Fall. But there remains some goodness in every man, though it be weak and needs vivified if it will avail unto eternal life. That is what Jesus meant when He said: "Without Me you can do nothing." He didn't mean we couldn't build a bridge or plant a vineyard or sweep the barn...good things too. He meant that only through Him and the Paraclete who enables us with His gifts, may souls perform miraculous, supernatural acts of love. Works of God's grace in us that show that we are friends of God and heirs of His promises. Of course, this is the reason why Christ ascended into Heaven and sent the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles on Pentecost Sunday which is today this year.

I would guess that all religions give good feelings at times or else nobody would remain in them. But it is under duress, in spiritual aridity, facing trials, bothered by enemies, that the light of Christ become most evident. The fruits of the good tree are evident when "all things (especially evil) work together for good to them who love God, and who are called according to His purpose." "If you love God, keep my commandments", said Our Lord. "I can do all things through Christ who strengtheneth me," proclaimed St. Paul. Darkness and death are swallowed up by supernatural light and love when God's people act under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. It might be as slight a matter as a humble response to somebody making a vulgar gesture to you on the highway. I must thank God for those who so treat me. I fear for those who may momentarily manifest themselves with hostility, even as my enemy, and I must remember that they are my salvation and know that of myself, I am truly worse in many ways. If I did gain a victory in such a trial, it would be a spiritual miracle for which I deserve no credit. I must love such enemies, hoping that they might be remade miraculously into the likeness of God.

So I am not thinking of loving consolations from God in the soul, good though they be. I am thinking that loving the God of consolations, and who gives us peace, we are looking for that true faith which enables us to mount up with the Psalmist on wings like eagles and live after a fashion that is incomprehensible to many, performing works of supernatural love through grace that are simply astounding to the purely natural man. My epistemology can not identify its object from natural goodness, but by heroic, otherworldly, (dare I say crazy?) sanctity.

Now that others are replying to the original post, I think I am sure I have said enough in a thread that really didn't call for this kind of conversation. My apologies to those who don't appreciate the distraction. It has been a pleasure to share my thoughts on this subject, Robert F. Smith, and also my apologies to you if I have been less than clear. See you around.

3DOP

Edited May 27, 2012 by 3DOP