Top 10 'bullseyes' For The Book Of Mormon In Old And New World?

[canard78]

I'm exchanging messages with a friend who's becoming persuaded by the View of the Hebrews/Late War evidence. I replied that while I found the 19thC evidence against to be compelling there were too many "bullseyes" in both the Old and New world in the text that Joseph couldn't have known. While they could be coincidence they are too persuasive to dismiss and sow seeds of possibility to allow room for faith.

With that in mind, what are your top 3 or 4 evidences "for" the Book of Mormon? If you could also provide a source or weblink that would be appreciated.

(Note: I fully accept the importance of personal revelation in this question. That plays a part in both my and my friends considerations. I also realise that a 'light list' doesn't fully do the question justice. I think an accessible starting point still has merit, even if each evidence also needs more detailed follow-up later).

 

I'm going to compile the list here, in case you're interested.

Edited December 29, 2014 by canard78

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm exchanging messages with a friend who's becoming persuaded by the View of the Hebrews/Late War evidence. I replied that while I found the 19thC evidence against to be compelling there were too many "bullseyes" in both the Old and New world in the text that Joseph couldn't have known. While they could be coincidence they are too persuasive to dismiss and sow seeds of possibility to allow room for faith.

With that in mind, what are your top 3 or 4 evidences "for" the Book of Mormon? If you could also provide a source or weblink that would be appreciated.

(Note: I fully accept the importance of personal revelation in this question. That plays a part in both my and my friends considerations. I also realise that a 'light list' doesn't fully do the question justice. I think an accessible starting point still has merit, even if each evidence also needs more detailed follow-up later)

I provided several examples at my FairMormon Conference address last August 8, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .  However, there are plenty of other "bull'seyes," as you term them, and they might just be a matter of personal preference.  What do you and your friend prefer?  Any particular type of "bull'seyes"?  I have many more in various categories.

[canard78]

Thanks. He's me what mine are, so just trying to crowd-source some of the links/references and build on what's jangling around in my head.

I think the ones that are external are stronger than the internal. So linguistic evidences don't really get my attention. Archaeological, geographical and anthropological ones seem stronger. Stuff that resonates with what we know today that Joseph couldn't have known.

Some examples:

- NHM and "Bountiful" being in the right place. Probably the best of the best.

- Sorenson's fair skinned art in mesoamerican that dies out around 200BC (when Nephites would have left the land of Nephi)

- Sorenson's narrow pass in the place where it should be

- Warring by seasons and significant calendar days

- No references to winter

- The sacrifice by Lehi made 3 days out of Jerusalem (that turned out to be in-line with a loop hole in the law of only making sacrifices at the temple)

Anything else like that that I might have forgotten.

I've leant him a copy of Mormon's Codex so he's working through that. It's a bit heavy going so it would be good to flag the good stuff in that (like the two examples mentioned above). I think cursor linked to a PDF summary of the best bits previously, I just can't track it down.

[Robert F. Smith]

..........................................................................................  

I've leant him a copy of Mormon's Codex so he's working through that. It's a bit heavy going so it would be good to flag the good stuff in that (like the two examples mentioned above). I think cursor linked to a PDF summary of the best bits previously, I just can't track it down.

What you are probably looking for is online at http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-reading-mormons-codex .

[Robert F. Smith]

...................................................................

- The sacrifice by Lehi made 3 days out of Jerusalem (that turned out to be in-line with a loop hole in the law of only making sacrifices at the temple)

....................................................................

Actually, the place in which Lehi sacrifices is three days out from his initial arrival at the Red Sea.  We are not told how long it took him to get to the Red Sea from Jerusalem, presumably by camel.

 

However, this is a major point, since Lehi follows archaic patriarchal practice in contravention of Deut.  See the 2001 article by David R. Seely, online at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1405&index=10 .  And note that the article also deals with the building of Jewish temples outside Palestine (two of them in Egypt), accompanied by a map.

 

Edited to put in good website.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[canard78]

What you are probably looking for is online at http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-reading-mormons-codex .

That's the one. Thanks. I'll glean a few bits from this list too and reference MC for further reading.

Thanks for your links.

[Buckeye]

I'd add Jacob 7's allegory of the olive tree. I've read papers discussing how accurate the allegory is to actual olive cultivation, something Joseph and his peers obviously would not have naturally known.

 

I also find the overall complexity and consistency of the BOM narrative to be compelling evidence that it was not written by Joseph (though of course this is not necessarily evidence of historicity). The overall story is fairly complex, with different people moving here and there, and the movements and dates all line up. The book employs several different time measurements (Lehi leaves Jerusalem, reign of judges, time of Christ's appearance, etc.). Often the text mentions multiple time measurements for the same event and the measurements always match. That's quite a feat to accomplish if you're inventing the story with your head in a hat.

 

FWIW, I consider the BOM excerpts quoting form Israelite prophets Zenock and Zenos to be the strongest potential proof of historicity of the BOM. Finding Zarahemla or Nephite artifacts in the new world would be great, but such evidence will require subjective interpretation because we know so little of ancient civilizations in the new world. In contrast, finding evidence that Zenos and Zenock were real people in ancient Israel, including, for example finding a cave in Israel that contains copies of their sermons quoted in the BOM, would be very strong evidence. Modern scholars can translate ancient Hebrew much better than ancient American languages.  If a document showed up in Israel that carbon-dates to 800 BC and translates to what Zenos and Zenock are quote to say in the BOM, IMO that would be the closest thing to a slam dunk that we could find.

[Calm]

Don't have time to check til much later today, but iirc FM is putting together an evidence section but I can't find it. If you send in a question about it someone there can direct you to it.

[Que]

That Seely link is not working for me...

Edited December 29, 2014 by Que

[Kevin Christensen]

I'd recommend John W. Welch's 1985 FARMS Preliminary report on "Answering B. H. Roberts Questions and 'An Unparallel". I've long been annoyed that those who cite the Roberts study so typically ignore Welch's detailed response. Welch extends some of the issues much futher in The Legal Cases of the Book of Mormon.

Also John Gee's essay in Echos and Evidences, "The Wrong Type of Book", which goes into some fundamental stylistic issues.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1082&index=10

On the postitive side of things, the Aston's In the Footsteps of Lehi. Or the Journey of Faith DVD.

From Welch and Szink, "King Benjamim's Discourse and Ancient Israelite Festivals".

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1087&index=8

To that, you could add in Mark Wright's comparison with the San Bartolo murals, which are contemporary with Benjamin, and also depict a coronation on a tower.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/axes-mundi-ritual-complexes-in-mesoamerica-and-the-book-of-mormon/

I'm naturally quite impressed by comparisons of Barker's First Temple Theology and the Book of Mormon:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1081&index=15

Brant's FAIR Presentation on "A Social History of the Early Nephites"

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2001-fair-conference/2001-a-social-history-of-the-early-nephites

Larry Poulson's FAIR presentation of Book of Mormon Geography:

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited December 29, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[Que]

Zenock and Zenos - as one who is at least partial to certain conspiracy theories, I often wonder if/what the Dead Sea Scroll scholars were hiding...

[Thinking]

I'd add Jacob 7's allegory of the olive tree. I've read papers discussing how accurate the allegory is to actual olive cultivation, something Joseph and his peers obviously would not have naturally known.

 

Of course the Bible has nothing similar to Jacob 5 that Joseph could have used as a reference. Right?

Romans 11

16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

Edited December 29, 2014 by Thinking

[JAHS]

The discovery of chiasmatic patterns of writing in the Book of Mormon; something that Joseph Smith probably didn't know about.

[Derl Sanderson]

You can always roll Old School with Nibley's insights on the BOM and the Lachish Letters:

 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1130&index=8

 

And his commentary on BOM proper names:

 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1106&index=5

[Robert F. Smith]

That Seely link is not working for me...

Sorry about that:  See David Rolph Seely. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 10/1 (2001): 62–69, 80, online at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1405&index=10 .  You can select the pdf there, if you like.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'd add Jacob 7's allegory of the olive tree. I've read papers discussing how accurate the allegory is to actual olive cultivation, something Joseph and his peers obviously would not have naturally known.

 

........................................................   

That would best be found in The Allegory of the Olive Tree (FARMS/Deseret, 1994), the introduction to which is online at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1140&index=1&keyword=allegory%20of%20the%20olive%20tree .  Individual papers therein are also available at the Maxwell Institute website, but you must select them individually.

[tonie]

I'm exchanging messages with a friend who's becoming persuaded by the View of the Hebrews/Late War evidence. I replied that while I found the 19thC evidence against to be compelling there were too many "bullseyes" in both the Old and New world in the text that Joseph couldn't have known.

 

I think you should be very carefull in promoting "bullseyes" and "Joseph could not have known".

 

I think your best approach is the second part of your statement:

 

 

 

While they could be coincidence they are too persuasive to dismiss and sow seeds of possibility to allow room for faith.

 

I think your most important step, in the beginning of this with your friend, is to continue to stress that apologetic responese can be "persuasvie" and can allow for the "possibility to allow room for faith".

 

I believe it was Daniel Peterson (during a meeting with youth in Utah) wherein he described apologetic responses as "adequate".  I think that sums it up apologetics quite well. Apologetics can be adequate. Apologetics it is not the Alpha Omega of responses, but is adequate to permit a person to study both sides of an issue; and then the person may make a thoughtful consideration of the issues.

Edited December 29, 2014 by tonie

[Robert F. Smith]

Of course the Bible has nothing similar to Jacob 7 that Joseph could have used as a reference. Right?

I think that you probably meant Jacob 5.

 

In any case, one probably should begin the intertextual comparisons with Jacob 4:17 ǁ Ps 118:22, "The stone which the builders rejected is become the head stone of the corner" ǁ Mat 21:42b, "The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner" ǁ Mk 12:10 ǁ Lk 20:17 ǁ Gospel of Thomas logion 66 (45:17-19); Eph 2:20, "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone"; cf Isa 28:16, Jer 51:26, Zech 4:7, Acts 4:10-12.

 

Because that leads into the meat of Jacob 5, in which Israel is the "vine" which was brought "out of Egypt" and "planted" in a land prepared for it, where it was caused “to take deep root," and in which its "boughs" and "branches" spread like those of a cedar tree (Ps 80:8-10); the man or master of the vineyard here is God (and his servants) as the planter, waterer, and grower (I Cor 3:5-9); and Zenas is quoted near another horticultural parable in Alma 32 - 34; cf Isa 5:1-7 [iI Ne 15:1-7], 27:2-11, 37:31, Jer 2:21, 11:16-17, Hos 10:1, 14:5-8, Ezk 19:10-14, Zech 8:12-13, Lk 13:6-9, Rom 11:13-25, Ahiqar Syr. 8:35 (olive & viticulture parables); Mat 12:33, 20:1-16, 21:33-45, Mk 12:1-12, Lk 20:9-19, Jn 15:1-8, Gospel of Thomas 65-66 (vineyard parables, which include the rejected-cornerstone imagery of Jacob 4:15-18, above); 1QH VIII; Mat 13:4-43, 17:20-21; I Ne 10:12-14, 15:12-16, 19:10,12,16, Alma 26:36, III Ne 10:16; cf also Gn 49:22, Judg 9:8-15, II Ki 14:9; II Esdras 9:21, Wisdom of Solomon 4:3-5; Mk 7:1-8; Ahiqar Elephantine 73; Midrash Sifre Deut 32:9 §312; Lev Rabba 11 (113a); Strack & Billerbeck I:874-875; Clement of Alexandria Stromata 6:15.

 

Thus, in addition to Romans 11 (which you have shown quite nicely), one must simultaneously be aware of the OT sources being quoted and utilized there and in Jacob 5 in intertextual fashion.  For, olive & viticulture parables occur in great detail long before St Paul comes on the scene.

 

Jacob 5:35 should also remind us that it is paralleled by III Ne 14:17-19 ǁ Mat 7:17-19, "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire"; cf Isa 5:1-7 (=II Ne 15:1-7), on Judah/Israel as a well-tended vineyard which did not produce good grapes; cf also Jer 11:16-17, Ezk 15:2-8, Hos 14:6-7, Zech 8:12-13, Jn 15:6, Rom 11:16-21.

 

However, the pièce de résistance is found  in Pseudo-Philo  28:4, where Zenez/Kenaz says: "my father,..commanded  me, saying, 'These words you will say to the sons of Israel, “’...And I would plant a great vineyard, and from it I would choose a plant; and I would care for it and call it by my name, and it would be mine forever..., nevertheless my plant that was called by my name did not recognize me as its planter, but it destroyed its own fruit and did not yield up its fruit to me'"'"; cf also I Ne 19:10-16; Josephus, Antiquities,  V, 3, 3 (§184).

 

Zenez/Kenaz appears to be a dead ringer for Book of Mormon Zenos.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Thinking]

I think that you probably meant Jacob 5.

 

Yep.

[canard78]

I'd add Jacob 7's allegory of the olive tree. I've read papers discussing how accurate the allegory is to actual olive cultivation, something Joseph and his peers obviously would not have naturally known.

Yes, Jacob 5's a good one. I read (in passing, will have to track it down somewhere) that some critical issues have been raised with Jacob 5. The olives almost disappear in the narrative about half way and completely by the last third. This happens around the time the narrative has a parallel with a second biblical piece that's more about vines/grapes/vinyard and not about an olive grove. I'll see if I can track it down.

I also find the overall complexity and consistency of the BOM narrative to be compelling evidence that it was not written by Joseph (though of course this is not necessarily evidence of historicity). The overall story is fairly complex, with different people moving here and there, and the movements and dates all line up. The book employs several different time measurements (Lehi leaves Jerusalem, reign of judges, time of Christ's appearance, etc.). Often the text mentions multiple time measurements for the same event and the measurements always match. That's quite a feat to accomplish if you're inventing the story with your head in a hat.

 

I agree - the meta narrative is persuasive. Can you share a bit more information about the time measurement always matching. That's a new one to me.

FWIW, I consider the BOM excerpts quoting form Israelite prophets Zenock and Zenos to be the strongest potential proof of historicity of the BOM. Finding Zarahemla or Nephite artifacts in the new world would be great, but such evidence will require subjective interpretation because we know so little of ancient civilizations in the new world. In contrast, finding evidence that Zenos and Zenock were real people in ancient Israel, including, for example finding a cave in Israel that contains copies of their sermons quoted in the BOM, would be very strong evidence. Modern scholars can translate ancient Hebrew much better than ancient American languages.  If a document showed up in Israel that carbon-dates to 800 BC and translates to what Zenos and Zenock are quote to say in the BOM, IMO that would be the closest thing to a slam dunk that we could find.

It would indeed.

[canard78]

I think you should be very carefull in promoting "bullseyes" and "Joseph could not have known".

  

I think your most important step, in the beginning of this with your friend, is to continue to stress that apologetic responese can be "persuasvie" and can allow for the "possibility to allow room for faith".

 

I believe it was Daniel Peterson (during a meeting with youth in Utah) wherein he described apologetic responses as "adequate".  I think that sums it up apologetics quite well. Apologetics can be adequate. Apologetics it is not the Alpha Omega of responses, but is adequate to permit a person to study both sides of an issue; and then the person may make a thoughtful consideration of the issues.

I agree. You're right, there's not enough evidence to prove the BoM's historicity (despite what Sorenson claims in Mormon's Codex). There is currently just enough to say: faith in this book, of divine origins, is also not entirely unreasonable.

[oremites]

I'm exchanging messages with a friend who's becoming persuaded by the View of the Hebrews/Late War evidence.

 

This doesn't address your question about bullseyes, but what completely convinced me that there was no relation between the View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon was to actually read it.  Or at least the first half.  I only skimmed the second half because it was just too boring. 

[oremites]

I agree. You're right, there's not enough evidence to prove the BoM's historicity (despite what Sorenson claims in Mormon's Codex). There is currently just enough to say: faith in this book, of divine origins, is also not entirely unreasonable.

 

Does Sorenson really claim in Mormon's Codex that the Book of Mormon's historicity is proven?

[canard78]

I've updated the OP with a link to the document where I'll gather these evidences. It's here.

 

As you'll see, I'm possibly going to include the option for summarising any rebuttal that has been made of these evidences and then a response to the rebuttal. E.g. NHM (or Nehem) is found on a 1751 map of the middle east (and several others after 1751). The response to the rebuttal would be... they're all maps printed in Europe and none of them have any proven link to Joseph Smith.

 

Out of interest, there are three maps listed in the book Joseph Smith is said to have owned: 

"Sacred Geography or a Description of the Places Mentioned in the Old and New Testament..."

The book is currently in the Community of Christ archives. Have those three maps been seen by any of you? Can we completely rule out the chance that Nehem/NHM is found on any of those maps? 

[canard78]

Does Sorenson really claim in Mormon's Codex that the Book of Mormon's historicity is proven?

 

He says that if people objectively read his evidences then they should be convinced of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I'll see if I can find it.