How Did Joseph Smith Know All Of This?

[MDalby]

Sorry if this has already been posted. I did a search and I didn't see it...

Daniel Petersen has a nice article on some facts that Joseph revealed that are very unlikely for an ordinary Joe Smith to be able to come up with on his own.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765592200/How-could-Joseph-know-all-of-this.html

Any other Joseph teachings that the world laughed at earlier but today are supported as true?

[MDalby]

Here is another item that gives some verification of Joseph. This was in the interview with Daniel Petersen where he brought this up.

Semitic languages only use vowels when speaking the language. The word Kolob comes from the root consonants of KLB. KLB in Hebrew means dog. The star Sirius is the brightest star in the sky and is called the dog star. No one seems to know why Sirius is called the dog star but Daniel suggests that maybe someone may have associated this name to Sirius due to its prominence in the sky. Daniel doesn't suggest that Sirius is Kolob but it is interesting that there is some correlation to the greatest star in the sky having a name with the same root as Kolob.

[The Nehor]

Semitic languages only use vowels when speaking the language.

Pretty sure you meant when writing the language there.

[cursor]

Please consider the very helpful article written by my father (years ago), "How Could Joseph Smith Write So Accurately about Ancient American Civilization?"

reference: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=8&chapid=65

[MDalby]

Pretty sure you meant when writing the language there.

Yep, thanks for the catch.

[omni]

Here is another item that gives some verification of Joseph. This was in the interview with Daniel Petersen where he brought this up.

Semitic languages only use vowels when speaking the language. The word Kolob comes from the root consonants of KLB. KLB in Hebrew means dog. The star Sirius is the brightest star in the sky and is called the dog star. No one seems to know why Sirius is called the dog star but Daniel suggests that maybe someone may have associated this name to Sirius due to its prominence in the sky. Daniel doesn't suggest that Sirius is Kolob but it is interesting that there is some correlation to the greatest star in the sky having a name with the same root as Kolob.

Don't you think that's just a liiiiiiittle bit of a stretch?

[jwhitlock]

Some very well thought out stuff from Dan, as usual. It was interesting to me to read the comments by the haters and mockers who have already decided that the Book of Abraham is fiction made up by Joseph Smith, and who mindlessly attack anyone - like Dan - who blows their narrow thesis out of the water with evidence to the contrary.

I find it more beneficial to try to understand the Book of Abraham, rather than to use anti-Mormon "conclusions" about it not being authentic to bludgeon the Church and its members. Those who dismiss it miss something significant that testifies of Joseph's prophetic gifts, and place themselves firmly in opposition to God.

[MDalby]

Don't you think that's just a liiiiiiittle bit of a stretch?

Ok, why don't you give a better explanation.

[canard78]

Don't you think that's just a liiiiiiittle bit of a stretch?

Yes, the Kolob one does seen a stretch to me too.

Green Eggs and Ham is also of ancient origin. How did Dr Seuss know all of this?

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V33N04_173.pdf

I find both the evidence for and the evidence against authorship compelling.

In the end I continue reading it because I like it. Even if there never was a Nephi there is still a Book of Mormon. Having a belief in God means that I consider the principles to be good enough to not reject the book based on possible origins.

[why me]

In the end I continue reading it because I like it. Even if there never was a Nephi there is still a Book of Mormon. Having a belief in God means that I consider the principles to be good enough to not reject the book based on possible origins.

If a person disbelieves the book of mormon, it would be best served to come up with an idea about how it came to be and then, find if that way were realistically possible through research. If this can't be done than it is only wishful thinking that it were not true.

[MDalby]

Here is another thing that Joseph guessed right. Amazing that he had the word sheum referring to a grain in the Book of Mormon and that later we would learn that sheum is a word for grains in Mesopotamia.

Assyriologists have observed that the ancient Assyrian term sheum was used at various times to refer to barley, grains generally, and even pine nuts. It is worth noting that sheum is also mentioned in the Book of Mormon in an agricultural context (see Mosiah 9:9). It apparently refers to a New World crop cultivated in the land of Nephi that was designated by an Old World term. Use of this term in the Book of Mormon is itself significant, since Akkadian could not be read (and hence the term sheum was not known) until decades after the Book of Mormon was published.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=126

[Thinking]

Semitic languages only use vowels when [writing] the language.

I thought they only used consonants.

[cinepro]

If a person disbelieves the book of mormon, it would be best served to come up with an idea about how it came to be and then, find if that way were realistically possible through research. If this can't be done than it is only wishful thinking that it were not true.

Not quite. Even if you can't explain something, that doesn't mean someone else's explanation or theory is true.

[cinepro]

Sorry if this has already been posted. I did a search and I didn't see it...

Daniel Petersen has a nice article on some facts that Joseph revealed that are very unlikely for an ordinary Joe Smith to be able to come up with on his own.

http://www.deseretne...ll-of-this.html

Any other Joseph teachings that the world laughed at earlier but today are supported as true?

I suppose it may be par for the course, but an article highlighting evidences like that really needs good footnotes. Nobody should be expected to take someone else's word for it, even if it's Dan Peterson.

Edited August 2, 2013 by cinepro

[Thinking]

A few years ago a poster frequently started threads about alleged bulls-eyes of Joseph Smith. If I only count the bulls-eyes and ignore the misses, the information is meaningless.

Here is my response.

The more possibilities there are, the less likely it is for there to be no matches (or bulls-eyes, as they are frequently called on this board). Consequently, the existence of some bulls-eyes is expected.

For example, if you have to take a 20 question multiple choice test (5 choices per question) and you are guessing, what is the probability that you answer zero correctly? 0.01153 or 1.153%

n = # questions

r = # correct

Probability = nCr[(0.2)^r][(0.8^(n-r)]

# Correct (Probability)

0 (.01153)

1 (.05765)

2 (.13691)

3 (.20536)

4 (.21820)

5 (.17456)

6 (.10910)

7 (.05455)

8 (.02216)

9 (.00739)

10 (.00203)

11 (.000462)

12 (.0000866)

13 (.0000133)

14 (.00000166)

15 (.000000166)

16 (.000000013)

17 (.000000000765)

18 (.0000000000319)

19 (.000000000000839)

20 (.0000000000000105)

Note that you have a much better random chance of guessing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 correctly than 0.

Similarly, there are possible names that can be created using the alphabet and there are names in the Book of Mormon which are somewhat unique. Both values are certainly more than 20, so the probability of having zero matches (or bulls-eyes) would be much less than 1%. It would be surprising if there were no matches at all.

Besides, Christ warned us to not be deceived by apparent miracles. "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." (Matthew 24:24)

[strappinglad]

Pretty sure you meant when writing the language there.

Actually , I think the original statement was correct. The written language only used consonants. The vowels were put in when speaking. This has led to some interesting mistakes where the incorrect vowels were inserted and the word was translated incorrectly.

[MDalby]

Actually , I think the original statement was correct. The written language only used consonants. The vowels were put in when speaking. This has led to some interesting mistakes where the incorrect vowels were inserted and the word was translated incorrectly.

Correct. I am trying to multitask too much. Thanks

[canard78]

If a person disbelieves the book of mormon, it would be best served to come up with an idea about how it came to be and then, find if that way were realistically possible through research. If this can't be done than it is only wishful thinking that it were not true.

This board is all about changing paradigms and expectations right? At least it has been for me.

I don't mind who wrote the Book of Mormon any more. Joseph Smith dictated it. That's as close to certain as we can get. The rest doesn't matter. If I read and apply then my life is better. That much makes it of Godly origins based on a principle within the book. Even if sources were a combination of inspiration and imagination with no plates and no Nephi then it is still a prophetic work.

Based on that conclusion one might presume the rest should fall into place. It doesn't. I take each piece on merit.

A cricket player might make a near-perfect stroke to hit it for six on one ball (think Pietersen's reverse switch hit a few years ago) and then lose concentration and fluff a basic defensive prod to get himself out on a leg before wicket on the next.

(For those who have no idea what that last paragraph was talking about: it's cricket. Like baseball but with far more dignity. A match can last 5 days and at the end can end in a draw (tie). Not because the scores are even but simply because after 5 days they've run out of time).

[why me]

This board is all about changing paradigms and expectations right? At least it has been for me.

I don't think that this is right. Of course this can happen. But this board is mainly about discussion and dialogue. Whatever comes from this dialogue and discussion is anyone's guess.

[canard78]

Here is another thing that Joseph guessed right. Amazing that he had the word sheum referring to a grain in the Book of Mormon and that later we would learn that sheum is a word for grains in Mesopotamia.

Assyriologists have observed that the ancient Assyrian term sheum was used at various times to refer to barley, grains generally, and even pine nuts. It is worth noting that sheum is also mentioned in the Book of Mormon in an agricultural context (see Mosiah 9:9). It apparently refers to a New World crop cultivated in the land of Nephi that was designated by an Old World term. Use of this term in the Book of Mormon is itself significant, since Akkadian could not be read (and hence the term sheum was not known) until decades after the Book of Mormon was published.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=126

The problem with linguistics is that there a limited number if sounds the human mouth can make. If you also then are able to eliminate vowels and use only the consonants then there's an even broader pool of options.

Talking of pools. 'Waters if Sebus' is another one to add to your list if you like.

SBS doesn't work in Hebrew because it begins and ends in the same consonants which (apparently) rarely happens.

Never fear. Hebrew of course was not the only language of the Lehites. They also traded with the Babylonians (the ones they were running from) and must have learnt their language to do so.

So when we dig into Babylonian and find that the word sabasu from the Aramaic root SBS means "to gather (taxes)" it becomes amazing evidence because then they were taking their sheep to "the waters of gathering" (...taxes, cough, cough).

Of course other apologists have pointed out that when we read Lamanites we actually mean mesoamericans. Laman and Lemual assimilated with the locals (hence their higher numbers and barbaric tendencies). But in doing that, even though they didn't have scriptures to retain their language, they were lucky enough to be able to introduce lots of Hebrew and Baylonian place names to the locals.

Except for when they didn't and they instead used mesoamerican words for things like sheum. Oh wait, that was the Nephites, the ones that were so strict aboutaintaining their language. It's ok, they would have adopted some local native words sometimes. When did they do that? Well, when it suits us of course. Sometimes though, when it says wheat that was just Joseph using modern language because he didn't know what a cocoa bean was.

http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=insights&vol=32&num=1&id=985

(I've probably used my entire sarcasm quotient for the day in one post).

[canard78]

I don't think that this is right. Of course this can happen. But this board is mainly about discussion and dialogue. Whatever comes from this dialogue and discussion is anyone's guess.

True, that to. In which case you might have said:

"If a person disbelieves the book of mormon (and wants to convince other people of such), it would be best served to come up with an idea about how it came to be and then, find if that way were realistically possible through research. If this can't be done than it is only wishful thinking that it were not true."

Have you done the above for every other book of scripture that you don't adopt? Conclusively proven its origins are not divine?

[why me]

I don't mind who wrote the Book of Mormon any more. Joseph Smith dictated it. That's as close to certain as we can get. The rest doesn't matter. If I read and apply then my life is better. That much makes it of Godly origins based on a principle within the book. Even if sources were a combination of inspiration and imagination with no plates and no Nephi then it is still a prophetic work.

Based on that conclusion one might presume the rest should fall into place. It doesn't. I take each piece on merit.

I think that the rest does matter. When we attempt to explain the process to people we should have a system in place. True, joseph dictated it but how and what from? We know that the plates existed because of the witnesses who claimed they saw them and some turned over the leafs. So we know that much. And then we know that these men had a spiritual experience when doing so. And confirmed it on their deathbeds. So, something was happening at that time. These are a couple of pieces of the puzzle.

Or it is just a fraud made by a fraudster who had very good and fortunate luck.

[why me]

"If a person disbelieves the book of mormon (and wants to convince other people of such), it would be best served to come up with an idea about how it came to be and then, find if that way were realistically possible through research. If this can't be done than it is only wishful thinking that it were not true."

Have you done the above for every other book of scripture that you don't adopt? Conclusively proven its origins are not divine?

I am doing that we the new testament at this very moment. I am reading a biography of the historical jesus and it is very interesting because of what the author is saying about the life of jesus and what is in the gospels. It seems that some creativity was used by the gospel writers to enhance the faith of the early christians when they wrote the gospels. And that would make sense since it is a narration of the certain events that may have happened as claimed or the writiers used poetic license.

Which of course begs the question: Was the book or mormon also written with poetic license by the ancient prophets for faith enhancement? Maybe so. All books are written with a specific audience in mind.

Edited August 2, 2013 by why me

[canard78]

I think that the rest does matter. When we attempt to explain the process to people we should have a system in place. True, joseph dictated it but how and what from? We know that the plates existed because of the witnesses who claimed they saw them and some turned over the leafs. So we know that much. And then we know that these men had a spiritual experience when doing so. And confirmed it on their deathbeds. So, something was happening at that time. These are a couple of pieces of the puzzle.

Or it is just a fraud made by a fraudster who had very good and fortunate luck.

We don't 'know' the plates existed. We only know that certain people very close to Joseph stood as witnesses their whole life to their existence. But that doesn't prove they existed.

And I don't accept your positioning as the only options. It is not either a direct translation of an ancient document or a fraud.

I so not consider the Bhagavad Gita to be either historical or a fraud/deception. I don't accept the "sudden death" option you are presenting.

If you need it to be, fine. More power to you. But don't presume that it has to be for everyone.

[why me]

We don't 'know' the plates existed. We only know that certain people very close to Joseph stood as witnesses their whole life to their existence. But that doesn't prove they existed.

Well, this is true. What we know is that 11 men saw the plates and gave testimony to it. But what does that prove? Maybe nothing. But then we need to ask why would they do it their all life and also on their deathbeds. If these plates did not exist I would say that these men had terrible lives knowing that they lied and people were suffering for that lie. Likewise for Emma who also felt the plates under a cloth, so she claims.

I suppose that when it comes to faith, we have no proof. Sad. But it does make the journey interesting.