What Are The Critical Arguments For The Production Of The Plates?

[MormonMason]

Mormon Mason, two things......photographic memory or he started the BoM while a teenager.  Is it possible?

I have no doubt that Joseph Smith had a good memory but there is evidence against him having a photographic memory.  He had a tendency to forget things from time to time.

 

As to starting it when a teenager, I doubt it.  There is about zero evidence for it.

[MormonMason]

You say in the first paragraph if the translation was "close enough for government" there would be no change, but in the next paragraph you speak of minor modifications that show proof of a Hebrew origin. Why would Joseph make those small modifications if it didn't significantly change the meaning? Weren't many of the modifications in the BoM relatively small without any doctrinal or cultural significance?

 

What you should do is to sit down and take a couple days to set Isaiah and the Book of Mormon renditions of Isaiah side by side.  Then, take an orange scripture marker and mark in your Book of Mormon every word and phrase where the texts differ, including omissions (orange vertical line between words).  Then, you will see for yourself how much of the text differs and how much of it is minor modification.  I have already done this.  I would agree that the changes do not so much affect doctrinal stances in all places, so in that sense it is minor.  But others are of interest linguistically because they can indicate modifications of an underlying Hebrew original that differed from the Masoretic text in plausible ways, and this from a young man who could not at the time read Hebrew.

 

The modifications that show evidence of Hebrew through the English text would be changes that would be accounted for by textual errors such as dittography and haplography in a Hebrew text.  This evidence must work in Hebrew to English and vice versa.  I am not talking about dropping of italics.

 

Again, take a look at the post I wrote above on the subject with the Hebrew in the lines.  Look carefully at the differences in the Hebrew lines for Isaiah 13:3 and 2 Nephi 23:3.  You will notice that substantial change in meaning occurs with doubling (dittography) or subtracting (haplography) just two letters in the sentence, which substantially changes the overall meaning.  Such a change is workable only in an underlying Hebrew text and would require a knowledge of Hebrew to do something like this to a Hebrew text and make it workable in English.  Joseph Smith knew no Hebrew until he learned it beginning in 1835.

[omni]

 

 

What you should do is to sit down and take a couple days to set Isaiah and the Book of Mormon renditions of Isaiah side by side.  Then, take an orange scripture marker and mark in your Book of Mormon every word and phrase where the texts differ, including omissions (orange vertical line between words).  Then, you will see for yourself how much of the text differs and how much of it is minor modification.  I have already done this.  I would agree that the changes do not so much affect doctrinal stances in all places, so in that sense it is minor.  But others are of interest linguistically because they can indicate modifications of an underlying Hebrew original that differed from the Masoretic text in plausible ways, and this from a young man who could not at the time read Hebrew.

 

 

Thanks for the challenge, I only had to look at the first verse (there are many other similar examples) in the BoM that compares to Isaiah to prove my point. This is the KJV of Isaiah 48:1 where I've bolded the differences.

 

Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the LORD, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness.

 

 

And her in the BoM version.

 

Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of Baptism, who swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, yet they swear not in truth nor in righteousness.

 

 

There are a number of changes in the text that have little or no significance.  You could argue the "or out of the waters of Baptism" has some significance, but what about the others? 

 

It's quite obvious that the number of verses copied verbatim from the Bible brings up issues as it would be nearly impossible to achieve the identicle translations.  To get around this, apologists state that for the verses where there were no significant changes Joseph simply copied them down from his Bible or quoted them by memory. 

 

First off, I have a lot of trouble with this theory because it implies that the translation process was very difficult or taxing and that Joseph's comfort was more important than getting a direct or exact translation.  Keep in mind, this is the most important book ever written, why take short cuts?  Second, I've shown that there are many minor changes made that had no effect on the meaning of the verse.  Where's the consistency?

[Tacenda]

I asked a question to Cursor on another thread about his father who worked with Thomas Stuart Ferguson in researching BoM lands.  Then realized that early in my faith crisis, my husband had come across a website about him and a paper he'd written summarizing the situation of the BoM archeology, written in 1975.  On the website, apparently they state that no new evidence has been found anywhere in the Americas to change the status of the BoM archeology.  I don't want to retype several pages of information so I just noted the founding of each topic.  Sorry I don't have the particular website, it's probably anti anyway. 

 

Plant- life Test

 

No Barley, Figs, Grapes, Wheat

 

Animal -Life Test  

 

(below are words mentioned in the BoM) 

 

No Asses, Calf, Calves, Cattle, Cow, Cows, Butter, Milk, Fatling, Fatlings, Firstlings, Flocks, Goat, Goats, Herds, Horse, Horses, Ox, Oxen, Sheep, Shearer, Sow, Swine, Elephants

 

Metallurgy Test

 

No iron, ore, plow-shares, silver, swords, hilts, engraving, steel

 

Additional Tests

 

No carriages, carts, chariots, glass 

 

Script Test

 

No Cuneiform

 

 

What do you think MM?  Has this all been hashed out before?  Any thoughts on this.  I'm definitely out of my league here with all of you here that know this stuff.   

[cdowis]

"Differences in Isaiah"

 

Remember that this is not just a difference in translation, but these are two different families of Isaiah.  The KJV is from the record of Judah, and the Plates of Brasss are from the record repository of Joseph.  They were likely created by different transcribers, and from different "editions" of Isaiah.  The book of Isaiah was certainly an ongoing process,  similar to our Book of Commandments, and the plates of brass would have been an earlier edition of the book.

 

I seem to remember that there are slight differences among individual copies of the 1830 Book of Mormon, as changes were ongoing.

Edited September 17, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

I asked a question to Cursor on another thread about his father who worked with Thomas Stuart Ferguson in researching BoM lands.  Then realized that early in my faith crisis, my husband had come across a website about him and a paper he'd written summarizing the situation of the BoM archeology, written in 1975.  On the website, apparently they state that no new evidence has been found anywhere in the Americas to change the status of the BoM archeology.  I don't want to retype several pages of information so I just noted the founding of each topic.  Sorry I don't have the particular website, it's probably anti anyway. 

 

Plant- life Test

 

No Barley, Figs, Grapes, Wheat

 

Animal -Life Test  

 

(below are words mentioned in the BoM) 

 

No Asses, Calf, Calves, Cattle, Cow, Cows, Butter, Milk, Fatling, Fatlings, Firstlings, Flocks, Goat, Goats, Herds, Horse, Horses, Ox, Oxen, Sheep, Shearer, Sow, Swine, Elephants

 

Metallurgy Test

 

No iron, ore, plow-shares, silver, swords, hilts, engraving, steel

 

Additional Tests

 

No carriages, carts, chariots, glass 

 

Script Test

 

No Cuneiform

 

 

What do you think MM?  Has this all been hashed out before?  Any thoughts on this.  I'm definitely out of my league here with all of you here that know this stuff.   

 

Barley has been found in the south west. Wild grapes are common in the America's.

 

Meteoric iron is found in America, and was used by some native Americans. Silver is found in the Americas.

 

Swords need not be made of metal.

https://www.google.com/search?q=mesoamerican+swords&client=firefox-a&hs=8ci&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=erk4Ur2mGefziQK55oGoBA&ved=0CEQQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=598&dpr=1

 

Stone engraving is common in Mesoamerica. So is engraving on gold.

 

There may have been no critical need for wheeled tools, but the Mesoamericans were well aware of the wheel.

[Tacenda]

Barley has been found in the south west. Wild grapes are common in the America's.

Meteoric iron is found in America, and was used by some native Americans. Silver is found in the Americas.

Swords need not be made of metal.

https://www.google.com/search?q=mesoamerican+swords&client=firefox-a&hs=8ci&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=erk4Ur2mGefziQK55oGoBA&ved=0CEQQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=598&dpr=1

Stone engraving is common in Mesoamerica. So is engraving on gold.

There may have been no critical need for wheeled tools, but the Mesoamericans were well aware of the wheel.

So they've definitely found the things you mentioned? I wonder how Dr. Ferguson and at the time Dr. Sorenson, may have missed that? What I really, really need to do is read 'Mormon Codex'. Sadly, its size is really intimidating to me. Also, you didn't mention anything about the other stuff, unknowns?

[MormonMason]

Thanks for the challenge, I only had to look at the first verse (there are many other similar examples) in the BoM that compares to Isaiah to prove my point. This is the KJV of Isaiah 48:1 where I've bolded the differences.

 

 

And her in the BoM version.

 

 

There are a number of changes in the text that have little or no significance.  You could argue the "or out of the waters of Baptism" has some significance, but what about the others? 

 

It's quite obvious that the number of verses copied verbatim from the Bible brings up issues as it would be nearly impossible to achieve the identicle translations.  To get around this, apologists state that for the verses where there were no significant changes Joseph simply copied them down from his Bible or quoted them by memory. 

 

First off, I have a lot of trouble with this theory because it implies that the translation process was very difficult or taxing and that Joseph's comfort was more important than getting a direct or exact translation.  Keep in mind, this is the most important book ever written, why take short cuts?  Second, I've shown that there are many minor changes made that had no effect on the meaning of the verse.  Where's the consistency?

You need to follow the challenge for the whole of the Isaiah passages, not just the first verse.  There are others that have more substantial modifications, including the addition of entire sentences.  Looking carefully at these ones with added sentences, it can be seen in several instances wherein entire sentences would go missing in the Masoretic text of Isaiah by the eye of a scribe skipping from one word at the beginning of a sentence to another sentence with what would have been the same word in Hebrew.

 

This would not be apparent from reading and constructing an English sentence without being familiar with methods of textual criticism.  Joseph Smith was not a Hebraist, much less a linguist or even linguistic student, in 1827-1830.  For instance, here is the first verse of Isaiah 49, followed by the same verse in 1 Nephi 21:

 

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.

 

 

And again:  Hearken, O ye house of Israel, all ye that are broken off and are driven out because of the wickedness of the pastors of my people; yea, all ye that are broken off, that are scattered abroad, who are of my people, O house of Israel.  Listen, O isles, unto me, and hearken ye people from far; the Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.

 

Now, in this example, the words "And again:" are those of Nephi, who is quoting this passage after quoting the previous one.  The word "Hearken" in the first English sentence, and the word "Listen" in the second English sentence, are represented in Hebrew by the same word, with the very same spelling.  If we were to back translate the sentences into Hebrew it would be easy to see where a scribe copying a text of Isaiah would knock off an entire sentence and/or even paragraph.  That sort of thing happened all the time before the scribes began adopting a stricter standard of copying texts during the 2nd Century A.D.  This is evidence of an underlying Hebrew text that was longer at the time the Hebrew text of Isaiah was translated into Egyptian and written on brass plates than what later became the Masoretic text.

 

To be able to do something like this more than once would have required knowledge of Hebrew to make such examples workable in English when back translated into Hebrew, which is why a scholar like Professor Mijnhardt was able to come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon had as its original a Semitic text.  He went through all these Isaiah passages, and other passages like this, back translating them, and reached that conclusion after working with the Book of Mormon in translating to Afrikaans for a year.  He came to the conclusion that Joseph Smith did not just make up the Book of Mormon but must have had an original Semitic text as a result of his closely studying the Isaiah passages and other passages like them.  The easier flow of the Hebrew when back translating passages of English that did not match the Bible into Hebrew could not have been done by someone just making up the text as he went along.

 

I, for one, don't have a problem with Joseph using what was in his mind or memory when translating.  And using a previous translation in a text that quotes from passages of the Bible was even an acceptable practice among scholars in Joseph's day.  This kind of thing is encouraged by modern day translators as well.  So long as the errors were not substantial, Isaiah in the KJV could be used.  Where they differed a little substantially Joseph would have followed what was before him on the plates.  I just do not see the problem with it.  The translation was substantially correct and many readers would have expected the KJV of Isaiah when reading quotes from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, so why not?

 

The key thing to remember, however, is that Joseph did not have a Bible at that time.  Even if he did, he did not have one with him during translation episodes.  Even if he had, he had his face buried in a hat staring at a stone at the bottom.  Yet, the text somehow is there.

 

And, the translating process was very difficult.  It tired Joseph out when he did it and his eyes often hurt from so long staring into what he had in the bottom of his hat.  There were times that they had to take breaks because Joseph was just too tired to continue without breaks.  Martin Harris, in fact, used those times to test Joseph to see if he was trying to defraud Harris.

Edited September 19, 2013 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

I asked a question to Cursor on another thread about his father who worked with Thomas Stuart Ferguson in researching BoM lands.  Then realized that early in my faith crisis, my husband had come across a website about him and a paper he'd written summarizing the situation of the BoM archeology, written in 1975.  On the website, apparently they state that no new evidence has been found anywhere in the Americas to change the status of the BoM archeology.  I don't want to retype several pages of information so I just noted the founding of each topic.  Sorry I don't have the particular website, it's probably anti anyway. 

 

Plant- life Test

 

No Barley, Figs, Grapes, Wheat

 

Animal -Life Test  

 

(below are words mentioned in the BoM) 

 

No Asses, Calf, Calves, Cattle, Cow, Cows, Butter, Milk, Fatling, Fatlings, Firstlings, Flocks, Goat, Goats, Herds, Horse, Horses, Ox, Oxen, Sheep, Shearer, Sow, Swine, Elephants

 

Metallurgy Test

 

No iron, ore, plow-shares, silver, swords, hilts, engraving, steel

 

Additional Tests

 

No carriages, carts, chariots, glass 

 

Script Test

 

No Cuneiform

 

 

What do you think MM?  Has this all been hashed out before?  Any thoughts on this.  I'm definitely out of my league here with all of you here that know this stuff.   

Yes, this stuff has been hashed out over the years, here and elsewhere.  I lot of it has been disproven or at least answered with plausibility arguments in one way or another.  I'll take them section by section.  Since I am not home with my books, I will have to do this by memory as best I can.  Here is the first, dealing with the so-called "plant-life test."

 

Barley, grapes and figs have been found.

 

Barley was found in a Hohokam archaeological site in Arizona.

 

All sorts of wild grapes grow all over the Americas.  In Mesoamerica (Belize, if I recall correctly), seeds of wine grapes recently were found in an archaeological dig.

 

It also has turned out that just about every continent and island apart from Antarctica and Hawaii, has varieties of figs that are indigenous.  In fact, the Panama Canal Zone alone has 17 native species of figs.  Many of these are what we call "strangler figs" because they wrap around and grow around other trees to get sunlight in tropical environments.  If they can get what they need, they will grow into trees 40-50 feet high, and the fruit often is sweet and edible.

 

Both the Maya and Azteca made bark paper from the bark of strangler fig trees native to Mesoamerica.  The latex sap that comes from this plant was used for other purposes.

 

The one that is very common was Ficus citrifolia.  Its native habitat was in Florida, the Bahamas, the Caribbean region, in southern Mexico, and down to central South America.

 

As to wheat, there are varieties of plants related to wheat that look like wheat.  I am not sure whether they ever found domesticated wheat. A form of teocinte may have been what they called wheat.  Certain types of amaranth also may have been considered by that name.  Amaranth was harvested and eaten in Mesoamerica, as was teocinte.  One type of teocinte became maize.  Another type (don't remember the name) also was harvested.  I think for wheat we have a plausibility argument at best, but considering that three out of four have been found, when originally it was thought that none could be found, I'd say that is pretty good odds.

 

I'll have to come back and discuss the rest later.

[thesometimesaint]

So they've definitely found the things you mentioned? I wonder how Dr. Ferguson and at the time Dr. Sorenson, may have missed that? What I really, really need to do is read 'Mormon Codex'. Sadly, its size is really intimidating to me. Also, you didn't mention anything about the other stuff, unknowns?

 

I've read some of Dr. Sorenson's work.

 

Mostly I use the Neil A. Maxwell Institute (FARMS) and LDS FAQ Mormon Answer as my go to resource.

 

I didn't mention the others because I don't know much of anything about them.

[omni]

"Differences in Isaiah"

Remember that this is not just a difference in translation, but these are two different families of Isaiah. The KJV is from the record of Judah, and the Plates of Brasss are from the record repository of Joseph. They were likely created by different transcribers, and from different "editions" of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah was certainly an ongoing process, similar to our Book of Commandments, and the plates of brass would have been an earlier edition of the book.

I seem to remember that there are slight differences among individual copies of the 1830 Book of Mormon, as changes were ongoing.

I'm now sure if I understand your argument correctly. Are you suggesting that Joseph didn't copy straight from the Bible and instead that his translation just happened to match word-for-word the KJV?

[omni]

You need to follow the challenge for the whole of the Isaiah passages, not just the first verse.  There are others that have more substantial modifications, including the addition of entire sentences.  Looking carefully at these ones with added sentences, it can be seen in several instances wherein entire sentences would go missing in the Masoretic text of Isaiah by the eye of a scribe skipping from one word at the beginning of a sentence to another sentence with what would have been the same word in Hebrew.

 

 

I'm not sure if you're understanding my argument correctly (I probably didn't communicate well).  I understand that there are some verses that contain significant changes, what I'm concerned about are the ones that do not. 

 

You (and many others) are proposing that when there were no significant changes, Joseph simply copied or remembered verbatim the text from the KJV and that when there were significant changes he made the corrections.  What I have shown in my previous post is that Joseph also made modifications when the changes in the meaning were not significant.  What would account for this inconsistency?

 

I, for one, don't have a problem with Joseph using what was in his mind or memory when translating.  And using a previous translation in a text that quotes from passages of the Bible was even an acceptable practice among scholars in Joseph's day.  This kind of thing is encouraged by modern day translators as well.  So long as the errors were not substantial, Isaiah in the KJV could be used.  Where they differed a little substantially Joseph would have followed what was before him on the plates.  I just do not see the problem with it.  The translation was substantially correct and many readers would have expected the KJV of Isaiah when reading quotes from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, so why not?

 

The key thing to remember, however, is that Joseph did not have a Bible at that time.  Even if he did, he did not have one with him during translation episodes.  Even if he had, he had his face buried in a hat staring at a stone at the bottom.  Yet, the text somehow is there.

 

And, the translating process was very difficult.  It tired Joseph out when he did it and his eyes often hurt from so long staring into what he had in the bottom of his hat.  There were times that they had to take breaks because Joseph was just too tired to continue without breaks.  Martin Harris, in fact, used those times to test Joseph to see if he was trying to defraud Harris.

 

 

Imagine for a moment that you had been charged in the translation of an ancient document that had recently been discovered.  Not only would this have the potential to make your career and a good deal of money, but the information in the document could change the world for the better.  You knew this would be a big deal and attract a lot of scrutiny so you wanted to make sure it was translated as best as possible. 

 

To assist in the translation you were able to secure a translator who was completely fluent in both English and the ancient language inscribed on the document.  You have 100% confidence that this individual would provide a "perfect" translation.  In addition have complete confidence that what you are translating is a primary document, straight from the "horses mouth" containing no scribal errors. 

 

While translating the document you come across significant portions that look just like Isaiah and other parts of the Bible.  You are someone who is well aware of the scribal errors, both deliberate and accidental that have occured in the translation of the Bible over the centuries.  Would you tell your translator, "let's do this the easy way, just go ahead and copy the verses straight from the KJV of the Bible and if there's any major changes we'll make them"?  This is the "most correct book on Earth", why would God take the easy way out?

[savedbygrace]

They originally did sign.  The original, so far as I am aware, has been lost.  There is a written copy or two floating around, but no original.  If you're interested, the handwritten copy of the testimonies of three and eight witnesses, as found in the Printers Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, can be seen here and here.

 

The original probably was lost with over 70% of the Original Manuscript when it became damaged by water and mold.  We did manage to find one of the original copyright registration forms some years back, though.  That can be seen here.

 

Thankyou, was it Joseph Smith who copied them in these examples?

[cdowis]

Omni, very nice post.  But the asserrtion of the critics is that JS copied "errors" that are in the KJV translation.

[omni]

Omni, very nice post. But the asserrtion of the critics is that JS copied "errors" that are in the KJV translation.

Agreed, but I'm now sure how It's relevant.

[MormonMason]

Thankyou, was it Joseph Smith who copied them in these examples?

No, it was Oliver Cowdery who, in the main copied, the Printer's Manuscript from the Original Manuscript.

[MormonMason]

I'm not sure if you're understanding my argument correctly (I probably didn't communicate well).  I understand that there are some verses that contain significant changes, what I'm concerned about are the ones that do not. 

 

You (and many others) are proposing that when there were no significant changes, Joseph simply copied or remembered verbatim the text from the KJV and that when there were significant changes he made the corrections.  What I have shown in my previous post is that Joseph also made modifications when the changes in the meaning were not significant.  What would account for this inconsistency?

 

 

Imagine for a moment that you had been charged in the translation of an ancient document that had recently been discovered.  Not only would this have the potential to make your career and a good deal of money, but the information in the document could change the world for the better.  You knew this would be a big deal and attract a lot of scrutiny so you wanted to make sure it was translated as best as possible. 

 

To assist in the translation you were able to secure a translator who was completely fluent in both English and the ancient language inscribed on the document.  You have 100% confidence that this individual would provide a "perfect" translation.  In addition have complete confidence that what you are translating is a primary document, straight from the "horses mouth" containing no scribal errors. 

 

While translating the document you come across significant portions that look just like Isaiah and other parts of the Bible.  You are someone who is well aware of the scribal errors, both deliberate and accidental that have occured in the translation of the Bible over the centuries.  Would you tell your translator, "let's do this the easy way, just go ahead and copy the verses straight from the KJV of the Bible and if there's any major changes we'll make them"?  This is the "most correct book on Earth", why would God take the easy way out?

Your proposition is not applicable to the situation of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

 

1.  Joseph Smith was barely literate in English at the time he translated the Book of Mormon.

2.  Joseph Smith wasn't a professional translator fluent in reformed Egyptian script.  He could get divine help but that help came through his thinking things out and confirming the correctness of the rendering.

3.  Joseph Smith was not aware of the scribal errors in the Isaiah text (how could he be when he could not read Hebrew at that time?) and even the Book of Mormon version of Isaiah on the brass plates introduces scribal errors all its own, which would be expected of an ancient text that also is a translation.  Remember, Book of Mormon Isaiah is a translation (English) of a translation (Egyptian) of an older Hebrew text.

4.  Even professional translators do and did resort to a previous translation of the Bible when quoting from the Old Testament.  Several more or less recent versions of the Bible quote from the KJV.  Translators in the 19th century were even more prone to do that, and for the New Testament, too.

5.  God works with us according to our understandings and abilities.  The evidence of that can even be seen in the texts of the Bible.

6.  "Most correct book" does not mean "flawless in diction" or "perfect translation."  No such thing possibly could exist in any language, in any translation involving man.  There are many places where we only can approximate and some words in other languages are untranslatable into English.  In places where certain animals do not exist, translators often substitute known animal names from the target audience's location for them.  In other cases, other terms are substituted.  When that happens it is called "functional translation" and even the Book of Mormon is that at places in the text.

[MormonMason]

I asked a question to Cursor on another thread about his father who worked with Thomas Stuart Ferguson in researching BoM lands.  Then realized that early in my faith crisis, my husband had come across a website about him and a paper he'd written summarizing the situation of the BoM archeology, written in 1975.  On the website, apparently they state that no new evidence has been found anywhere in the Americas to change the status of the BoM archeology.  I don't want to retype several pages of information so I just noted the founding of each topic.  Sorry I don't have the particular website, it's probably anti anyway. 

 

Plant- life Test

 

No Barley, Figs, Grapes, Wheat

 

Animal -Life Test  

 

(below are words mentioned in the BoM) 

 

No Asses, Calf, Calves, Cattle, Cow, Cows, Butter, Milk, Fatling, Fatlings, Firstlings, Flocks, Goat, Goats, Herds, Horse, Horses, Ox, Oxen, Sheep, Shearer, Sow, Swine, Elephants

 

Metallurgy Test

 

No iron, ore, plow-shares, silver, swords, hilts, engraving, steel

 

Additional Tests

 

No carriages, carts, chariots, glass 

 

Script Test

 

No Cuneiform

 

 

What do you think MM?  Has this all been hashed out before?  Any thoughts on this.  I'm definitely out of my league here with all of you here that know this stuff.   

I spent so much time looking around for this part of the thread (I could not recall the title of the thread when I came back) that I ran out of time and will have to come back again later for the rest, but I can speak to the Cuneiform "script test" now.  This is going to be really short.

 

Lack of Cuneiform has zero bearing on the Book of Mormon archaeologically.

 

The rest will have to come later, if I can find the time to post with how hectic things have been.

[Robert F. Smith]

I asked a question to Cursor on another thread about his father who worked with Thomas Stuart Ferguson in researching BoM lands.  Then realized that early in my faith crisis, my husband had come across a website about him and a paper he'd written summarizing the situation of the BoM archeology, written in 1975.  On the website, apparently they state that no new evidence has been found anywhere in the Americas to change the status of the BoM archeology.  I don't want to retype several pages of information so I just noted the founding of each topic.  Sorry I don't have the particular website, it's probably anti anyway. 

 

Plant- life Test

 

No Barley, Figs, Grapes, Wheat

 

Animal -Life Test  

 

(below are words mentioned in the BoM) 

 

No Asses, Calf, Calves, Cattle, Cow, Cows, Butter, Milk, Fatling, Fatlings, Firstlings, Flocks, Goat, Goats, Herds, Horse, Horses, Ox, Oxen, Sheep, Shearer, Sow, Swine, Elephants

 

Metallurgy Test

 

No iron, ore, plow-shares, silver, swords, hilts, engraving, steel

 

Additional Tests

 

No carriages, carts, chariots, glass 

 

Script Test

 

No Cuneiform

 

This sort of list was necessarily much longer back in B. H. Roberts' day.  So little was known then, and so little archeology had been done.

Many of these items are dealt with at http://en.fairmormon.org/Main_Page .  Just put the term that interests you in the search button on the left of that window, and voila, all the articles dealing with it come up.

 

Many of the items you list are taken from Isaiah quotations and have nothing to do with Jaredite or Lehite-Mulekite life in the Americas.  I can recall the time in mid 1975 when Tom Ferguson sent me just such a list (only longer).  I knew that he was an attorney out in the San Francisco Bay area, but had never met him (I had dated his daughter while she was in Jerusalem about 5 years earlier).  I hope that he didn't do that sort of slipshod work for his legal clientele.

 

Ferguson never did any research on possible Book of Mormon lands, and he knew nothing of  anthropology or archeology.  However, he was an excellent fund-raiser for the New World Archeological Foundation (NWAF), which was dedicated to standard archeology (not to looking for Book of Mormon lands).  His disappointments came from his ignorant expectations about what archeology is and does.  He was also incapable of reading the Book of Mormon carefully.

 

His item on "No iron, ore" is a good example of his lack of familiarity with actual excavation results:  Tons of iron artifacts have been found in Olmec sites, and we know where they got the iron from up in Oaxaca.  This is long before the arrival of the Mulekites and Lehites.

[Tacenda]

This sort of list was necessarily much longer back in B. H. Roberts' day. So little was known then, and so little archeology had been done.

Many of these items are dealt with at http://en.fairmormon.org/Main_Page . Just put the term that interests you in the search button on the left of that window, and voila, all the articles dealing with it come up.

Many of the items you list are taken from Isaiah quotations and have nothing to do with Jaredite or Lehite-Mulekite life in the Americas. I can recall the time in mid 1975 when Tom Ferguson sent me just such a list (only longer). I knew that he was an attorney out in the San Francisco Bay area, but had never met him (I had dated his daughter while she was in Jerusalem about 5 years earlier). I hope that he didn't do that sort of slipshod work for his legal clientele.

Ferguson never did any research on possible Book of Mormon lands, and he knew nothing of anthropology or archeology. However, he was an excellent fund-raiser for the New World Archeological Foundation (NWAF), which was dedicated to standard archeology (not to looking for Book of Mormon lands). His disappointments came from his ignorant expectations about what archeology is and does. He was also incapable of reading the Book of Mormon carefully.

His item on "No iron, ore" is a good example of his lack of familiarity with actual excavation results: Tons of iron artifacts have been found in Olmec sites, and we know where they got the iron from up in Oaxaca. This is long before the arrival of the Mulekites and Lehites.

Why would the church throw money away on "Tom" if he didn't know what he was doing? And why would you say he never did the research. If I recall, he spent many years of his life dedicated to it. Maybe you were being sarcastic. Anyway, I appreciate the comments about it. I will read more Fair stuff. And am excited for the condensed version of the Mormon Codex.

[Calm]

Why would the church throw money away on "Tom" if he didn't know what he was doing? And why would you say he never did the research. If I recall, he spent many years of his life dedicated to it. Maybe you were being sarcastic. Anyway, I appreciate the comments about it. I will read more Fair stuff. And am excited for the condensed version of the Mormon Codex.

Ferguson was the fundraiser, he wasn't doing the actual work or determining what that work was. I believe the Maxwell institute site has an article describing what went on, including how Ferguson's personal expectations led him wrong when he refused to reevaluate them when given new information.

I believe he means he never took sufficient time to become educated in the field. One can spend one's whole life dedicated to something, but if one refuses to learn the basics or to keep up new techniques, what "research" one does is usually worthless. For example, perhaps after visiting a rocket launch in one's youth, an individual devotes all his spare time to building a rocket in his backyard, but if he builds it according to how it looked to him from that one experience, would you expect him to ever get it off the ground? That is a simplification of what Ferguson did, but from comments made by the experts he was surrounded with, it amazes me he did not depend more on them then his visualisation of what it should have been like in his mind.

Some relevant info available here:

http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=review&vol=16&num=1&id=531&q=Doubting%20Thomas&search_result

Edited September 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

Ferguson was the fundraiser, he wasn't doing the actual work or determining what that work was. I believe the Maxwell institute site has an article describing what went on, including how Ferguson's personal expectations led him wrong when he refused to reevaluate them when given new information.

I believe he means he never took sufficient time to become educated in the field. One can spend one's whole life dedicated to something, but if one refuses to learn the basics or to keep up new techniques, what "research" one does is usually worthless. For example, perhaps after visiting a rocket launch in one's youth, an individual devotes all his spare time to building a rocket in his backyard, but if he builds it according to how it looked to him from that one experience, would you expect him to ever get it off the ground? That is a simplification of what Ferguson did, but from comments made by the experts he was surrounded with, it amazes me he did not depend more on them then his visualisation of what it should have been like in his mind.

Some relevant info available here:

http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=review&vol=16&num=1&id=531&q=Doubting%20Thomas&search_result

A fundraiser only, doesn't quit his job and live somewhere for 10 yrs. and become part of the research do they? Maybe he didn't have the right credentials but even an uneducated person can see something or not see something. Sounds like he just didn't live long enough to see the unveiling of new information. Edited September 27, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

A fundraiser inly doesn't quit his job and live somewhere for 10 yrs. and become part of the research do they? Maybe he didn't have the right credentials but even an uneducated person can see something or not see something. Sounds like he just didn't live long enough to see the unveiling of new information.

See Sorenson's quote about the 12th paragraph down or so for why even if Ferguson saw new info, it might not have had any impact on him.

Also his comment about the 1975 paper.

Edited September 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

See Sorenson's quote about the 12th paragraph down or so for why even if Ferguson saw new info, it might not have had any impact on him.

Also his comment about the 1975 paper.

I read the quote, sounds like you would need to know what to look for and he apparently didn't and when he couldn't, he then started down the road of doubt. I see it more clearly now. Do you know of any non Mormon Archeologists that are agreeing with Dr. Sorenson's work? Probably not Dr. Coe yet, though they are apparently friends.

[Calm]

I think Ferguson's greater problem was here he was surrounded by experts but apparently ignored them. It seems unlikely to me given Sorenson's willingness to share his knowledge that he kept quiet when Ferguson was standing next to him about what he (Sorenson) saw 'in the dirt' yet Ferguson was only interested in finding evidence of horses.

Reminds me of parents who consider their kid a failure because she doesn't measure up to the standard they chose for her...to be a surgeon...even if she is a world class pianist or some such thing. Where it "really matters" to them, she just didn't make the grade and she can't compensate for that lack by being great in other things.

Though to give Ferguson credit, it appears in the last year or so of his life, he was able to look at things in a new way and regained his testimony.

Edited September 27, 2013 by calmoriah