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

[canard78]

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.

- SNIP -

 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Thanks

[canard78]

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

 

Personally not convinced by chiasms or hebraisms. There are too many examples of hebraisms in works like The Late War... or in the D&C (both clearly not of ancient origin) to see this as credible.

 

I'll try and find an example of a chiasm I saw while reading 3 Nephi a while back which could equally be an example of someone simple repeating themselves, backwards. The first half of the chiasm was an, almost, verbatim quote from the KJV of the Bible. The second half (the chiastic part) was the same message of the quoted section but said broadly in reverse.

[Buckeye]

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.

Here are a few examples. There are others in the BOM; these are just a few I quickly found by searching the church's website. Again, it's not proof of historicity, but proof that if the BOM is a fraud its author(s) took a big risk by including easily falsifiable factual claims.

 

3 Nephi 1:1

Now it came to pass that the ninety and first year had passed away and it was six hundred years from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem; and it was in the year that Lachoneus was the chief judge and the governor over the land.

 

3 Nephi 2: 4-8

And thus did pass away the ninety and sixth year; and also the ninety and seventh year; and also the ninety and eighth year; and also the ninety and ninth year;

And also an hundred years had passed away since the days of Mosiah, who was king over the people of the Nephites.

And six hundred and nine years had passed away since Lehi left Jerusalem.

And nine years had passed away from the time when the sign was given, which was spoken of by the prophets, that Christ should come into the world.

Now the Nephites began to reckon their time from this period when the sign was given, or from the coming of Christ; therefore, nine years had passed away.

 

 

Mosiah 29:45-46

And now it came to pass that his father died, being eighty and two years old, having lived to fulfil the commandments of God.

And it came to pass that Mosiah died also, in the thirty and third year of his reign, being sixty and three years old; making in the whole, five hundred and nine years from the time Lehi left Jerusalem.

[Buckeye]

Personally not convinced by chiasms or hebraisms. There are too many examples of hebraisms in works like The Late War... or in the D&C (both clearly not of ancient origin) to see this as credible.

 

I'll try and find an example of a chiasm I saw while reading 3 Nephi a while back which could equally be an example of someone simple repeating themselves, backwards. The first half of the chiasm was an, almost, verbatim quote from the KJV of the Bible. The second half (the chiastic part) was the same message of the quoted section but said broadly in reverse.

 

To piggyback off of my most recent comment, you may consider the chiasms at least as evidence that Joseph did not commit a fraud himself by telling a story with his head in a hat. Some of the BOM chiasms are rather lengthy - consider Alma 32 - and seem to me beyond reach for someone to generate stream of conscience. So if not evidence of historicity, I think the chiasms at least force an alternate explanation for the BOM that includes a group fraud consisting of Joseph and Oliver (and probably the Whitmers, Smiths, and maybe even Rigdon).

[canard78]

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.

Possibly a discussion for another thread.

VotH in isolation is not enough to explain the BoM. But if the BoM is of modern origins then VotH is just one small piece in the medley of possible influences.

[why me]

We had a poster on this forum years ago who would post threads with the bullseyes in them.  These threads were quite good. I  believe that the poster's name was consigliere. Maybe you can find his bullseye threads in the archive.

[Tacenda]

We had a poster on this forum years ago who would post threads with the bullseyes in them.  These threads were quite good. I  believe that the poster's name was consigliere. Maybe you can find his bullseye threads in the archive.

Consiglieri is a poster on Staylds.com.  Last I heard he attends the LDS church but not a TBM, unless he's come back.  He isn't as active on the discussion board that I can tell. ETA:  Looks like he was banned on here.   

Edited December 29, 2014 by Tacenda

[omni]

Here are a few examples. There are others in the BOM; these are just a few I quickly found by searching the church's website. Again, it's not proof of historicity, but proof that if the BOM is a fraud its author(s) took a big risk by including easily falsifiable factual claims.

Ironically the 3 Nephi 2 verses you quoted could also be used as evidence against its historicity. We are told Reformed Egyptian was used due to its ability to reduce precious space on the gold plates, yet the entire first paragraph is used to clumsily state what could have been said in one sentence.

[why me]

Consiglieri is a poster on Staylds.com.  Last I heard he attends the LDS church but not a TBM, unless he's come back.  He isn't as active on the discussion board that I can tell. ETA:  Looks like he was banned on here.   

His bullseye posts were quite good. And his summaries of his sunday school lessons were good too. The old timers here would remember them well. Too bad about his bulleye threads. I can't find them. Sometimes he posts on another board that can't be named.

[DJBrown]

I think Mulek, son of Zedekiah, is a pretty good hit.  

 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/12/2/S00008-50be69aad59c87Chadwick.pdf

[Brian 2.0]

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? 

 

While definitely not a proven link to Joseph Smith there were two books with maps and an "NHM"-like name on them a lot closer than Europe.

 

These are some books at Allegheny College from an 1823 register:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=K5xAAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=allegheny+college&hl=en&ei=6MxqTMKbKY7UngfL5rSIAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

D’Anville’s book with a map showing "Nehhm" is listed on page 18

Niebuhr's book with a map showing "Nehem" is listed on page 44

 

Now Allegeny is not in Joseph Smith's backyard, but it was Sidney Rigdon's backyard.  He was from Allegheny County.  And as a very well-read man in history and biblical items one could argue some type of connection there without having to go to Europe to find the connection.

 

 

*** I admittedly don't know much on the NHM thing, i just started looking it up because of this thread and found these items and thought I'd pass them along.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Bob Crockett]

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.

 

In plagiarism cases, "unparallels" are irrelevant.  I do not find these arguments one bit persuasive. 

 

I was once the victim of plagiarism.  A 50-page law review article used three entire paragraphs of mine, word for word, without attribution.  The author's conclusions and methodologies, however, were quite different than mine.  The topic concerned the tangibility of software for legal purposes.  Had I pressed the matter, no amount of claiming that his 50-page article was different than mine would have saved him from a copyright violation.

 

I think the listed bullseyes are frivolous.  More significant is the fact that the Book of Mormon teaches a doctrine of free will and agency quite contrary to the prevailing Christian wisdom of the time. 

Edited December 30, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

There is considerable difference between actually proving something (anything) and merely providing good, convincing evidence.  Also, being convinced is a very individual matter.  What might convince one person, might not convince another.  Juries get hung up on just such differences of opinion, even after hearing the same evidence.  I had this happen in a civil trial in which I was on the jury.  We eventually got 9 out of 12 to agree on a verdict, but it was difficult.  Fortunately that was all we needed to reach a decision.

 

There is a basic difference in obtaining proof beyond a reasonable doubt, on the one hand, and simply reaching a decision based on the preponderance of evidence on the other.  And that is only in our justice system.  Science is even more stringent.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

You mention dates in that list, as follows:

• New Year’s Day was a significant day for Mesoamerican kings to perform ceremonies and blessings on his people. Finding their leader and king killed in his tent on new year’s day would have been a psychological blow to the people. They retreat in fear.
• (Alma) 51:33 says that on the night that Amalickiah was killed, he and his camp were overcome with fatigue due to “heat of the day.” Average temperatures in upstate New York in late December are between -7 and 0.5C (32-44F). In Yucatan, Mexico the temperatures in December range from 19-27C (66-80F).

John Sorenson does place that New Year on December 22, at the solstice. I place the event in September 70 B.C., based on the Mesoamerican Long Count of 360-day years (which Sorenson originally came up with), so the temperature may have been warm in either place.

 

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?

The Community of Christ Archives in Independence, Missouri, are open to researchers.  One would like to see those maps, and any mentioned above by Brian 2.0.  Of course this begs the question of when or if Joseph actually saw them or came into possession of them.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think Mulek, son of Zedekiah, is a pretty good hit.  

 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/12/2/S00008-50be69aad59c87Chadwick.pdf

My own version is shorter and to the point, http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=806 .

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Of course not.

[strappinglad]

Now Allegeny is not in Joseph Smith's backyard, but it was Sidney Rigdon's backyard.  He was from Allegheny County.  And as a very well-read man in history and biblical items one could argue some type of connection there without having to go to Europe to find the connection.

That would make Sidney a time traveler as the BoM was already printed before he arrived to meet Joseph.

[canard78]

You mention dates in that list, as follows:

• New Year’s Day was a significant day for Mesoamerican kings to perform ceremonies and blessings on his people. Finding their leader and king killed in his tent on new year’s day would have been a psychological blow to the people. They retreat in fear.
• (Alma) 51:33 says that on the night that Amalickiah was killed, he and his camp were overcome with fatigue due to “heat of the day.” Average temperatures in upstate New York in late December are between -7 and 0.5C (32-44F). In Yucatan, Mexico the temperatures in December range from 19-27C (66-80F).

John Sorenson does place that New Year on December 22, at the solstice. I place the event in September 70 B.C., based on the Mesoamerican Long Count of 360-day years (which Sorenson originally came up with), so the temperature may have been warm in either place.

Thanks, I was making those points based on Joseph's new year. As in, if Joseph wrote it, why was he talking about the heat of the day on (his) New Year's Day. You're right though, if the BoM is historical then NYD could be hotter and not a December date.

The Community of Christ Archives in Independence, Missouri, are open to researchers. One would like to see those maps, and any mentioned above by Brian 2.0. Of course this begs the question of when or if Joseph actually saw them or came into possession of them.

Bit of a trek from UK

Edited December 30, 2014 by canard78

[canard78]

Of course not.

I shouldn't have said he claimed it was proven.

He says:

Only one explanation for the Mesoamerican content is plausible, that the text was written by a native Mesoamerican person who lived in about the fourth century AD.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-reading-mormons-codex

I'm fairly sure there's a stronger statement in his book intro. I'll try to dig it out.

[canard78]

Here are a few examples. There are others in the BOM; these are just a few I quickly found by searching the church's website. Again, it's not proof of historicity, but proof that if the BOM is a fraud its author(s) took a big risk by including easily falsifiable factual claims.

Thanks, these are great examples. To rattle these off would need an impressive mathematical brain!

[canard78]

In plagiarism cases, "unparallels" are irrelevant. I do not find these arguments one bit persuasive.

I was once the victim of plagiarism. A 50-page law review article used three entire paragraphs of mine, word for word, without attribution. The author's conclusions and methodologies, however, were quite different than mine. The topic concerned the tangibility of software for legal purposes. Had I pressed the matter, no amount of claiming that his 50-page article was different than mine would have saved him from a copyright violation.

I think the listed bullseyes are frivolous. More significant is the fact that the Book of Mormon teaches a doctrine of free will and agency quite contrary to the prevailing Christian wisdom of the time.

Can you elaborate on your last paragraph?

My impression of the theology of the BoM was that it fits extremely well with the doctrinal debates of the day.

Are there any specific passages you could reference.

I agree that external evidences are secondary in importance to the words in the book in the grand scheme of things. I'm wondering how long before mfbukowski can't bear it any longer and makes a similar point

This is specifically a list I'm creating after making a throwaway comment in a conversation. My friend had said that the 19thC evidence was strong, I agreed but said there were too many "bullseyes" for me to completely move to a modern (but potentially still divine) origin for the book. He asked me for my list of examples with sources. This thread is an aide-memoir for all the stuff that's out there.

I'm working on a separate thread of analysis looking at the doctrinal clarifications in the BoM (nature of the atonement, conversion, baptism, resurrection etc) to compare with the views of 1800s religious debate. I'm seeing a lot of convergences (to use Sorenson's phrase) between the BoM and 1800s thinking. It would be great to have an example where it goes away from it if you could please.

[canard78]

Here are a few examples. There are others in the BOM; these are just a few I quickly found by searching the church's website. Again, it's not proof of historicity, but proof that if the BOM is a fraud its author(s) took a big risk by including easily falsifiable factual claims.

 

Buckeye, I've tried to summarise complexity of keeping track of all these dates at the same time as some of the disruption between the passages and events that are referenced in these multiple dates:

 

The Book of Mormon follows a complex narrative with multiple peoples and groups overlapping heavily. None of them are ever “lost” from the narrative. People who are sometimes ignored for dozens of chapters, reappear in the narrative later with an understanding of their parallel experiences.

 

Date ranges and calendar measurements are also often complex but fully consistent.

 

For example:

 

3 Nephi 2: 4-8

And also an hundred years had passed away since the days of Mosiah, who was king over the people of the Nephites.

And six hundred and nine years had passed away since Lehi left Jerusalem.

And nine years had passed away from the time when the sign was given, which was spoken of by the prophets, that Christ should come into the world.

Now the Nephites began to reckon their time from this period when the sign was given, or from the coming of Christ; therefore, nine years had passed away.

 

This references:  Mosiah 29:46-47 and Mosiah 6:4

 

6:4 And Mosiah began to reign in his father’s stead. And he began to reign in the thirtieth year of his age, making in the whole, about four hundred and seventy-six years from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem.

...

29:46 And it came to pass that Mosiah died also, in the thirty and third year of his reign, being sixty and three years old; making in the whole, five hundred and nine years from the time Lehi left Jerusalem.

47 And thus ended the reign of the kings over the people of Nephi; and thus ended the days of Alma, who was the founder of their church.

 

The dictation of the early chapters of the Book of Mosiah has been estimated to have been started in Nov 1828 (before Cowdery became scribe). However most evidence supports the majority of the Book of Mosiah being dictated to Oliver Cowdery from April 1829. The start of Mosiah’s reign and his death might have had up to four to five months gap between dictation.

 

3 Nephi is estimated to have been completed in May 1829.

 

At the time Mosiah and 3 Nephi were both dictated, 1 Nephi had not yet been dictated. The loss of the 116 pages meant the translation resumed from near to where it had been stopped (Mosiah) some nearly a year earlier with 1 Nephi to Words of Mormon finished last. The 116 pages were translated between April and June 1828.

 

The constant date of Lehi’s departure from Jerusalem would have either been established during the dictation of the 116 pages or only known once 1st Nephi was dictated in June 1829.

 

During these periods of time Joseph moved house twice (to Harmony and later to the Whitmer’s farm in Fayette), had at least five different scribes (Martin Harris, Emma Smith, Reuben Hale, Oliver Cowdery, & possibly John & Christian Whitmer), received 10 or 11 revelations (now sections 2 to 11 of the D&C), dealt with family sickness, the death of his and Emma’s first child, started baptisms and dealt with family and business issues.

In all this disruption and gaps in dictation, the narrative thread and the multiple date references pegged against Lehi’s departure, the reign of kings, the age of the judges and the signs of Christ’s birth are all kept consistent without ever contradicting each other.

 

More reading:

• http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_Translation_By_Joseph_Smith

• http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Chronology

• http://www.eldenwatson.net/BoM.htm (this timeline is fairly speculative, based on how certain passages could have triggered other letters, events and D&C revelations)

• http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/book-of-mormon-manuscript-excerpt-circa-june-1829-1-nephi-22b-318a

• http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_Manuscripts

 

Out of interest, does anyone have an opinion on "Elder Watson's" timeline. Some of it seems too speculative to have any real merit. The main question it raises is whether early parts of Mosiah were dictated to Emma (or Reuben) and Oliver picked up half way through Mosiah or whether Oliver was the scribe from Mosiah 1:1.

[Brant Gardner]

I believe that it is an important methodological failing to allow lists of "bullseyes" to stand for evidence. With a listing of the bullseyes we get discrete elements that are easily separated and evaluated individually. That obscures the real evidence for the Book of Mormon, which is the compounding of information that is appropriate to the specific times and places plausible for the Book of Mormon. 

 

The best examples come from the Old World because we are more sure of the location and time. Features of the text's description of travel, practices, and (I believe) specifics of the theological foundations may be traced to the very narrow time and place the book claims for its Old World origin.

 

In the New World we obviously have less surety in the place. However, the same kinds of compounding evidence provide the best evidence for the text's historicity. It isn't any single thing. It isn't a list of a hundred things. It is the relationship of very specific descriptions in the text that correspond/converge with the known social/cultural/historical data for a single geography at  the times indicated in the text. 

 

Many of the items discussed so far can enrich our understanding of the text once there is a solid structure of time and location built for the text. For example chiasmus was originally thought to be an important single piece of evidence. Now that we have seen it in so many things, its value as a single point of convergence is diminished. However, in the context of the larger framework of convergences, it still has place as supplementary information. Not only does the Old World inheritance play into the equation, but the finding that we can see chiasmus in Mesoamerican literature (in the Popol Vuh and in some glyphic texts) tells us that its presence in the Book of Mormon is warranted both as a connection to the Old World heritage and as a continuation of a New World literary trend (without making any assumption that the Nephite use of chiasmus created the Mesoamerican literature--it is much more likely that different types of parallelisms are a non-unique aspect of human literate production).

 

Another example of how to better establish the nature of the convergences in the Book of Mormon is the issue of cement. I usually see this as the single item of cement. That is problematic because we can't be sure that cement means cement if we also suggest that silk isn't silk. We have to be consistent in our explanations. Cement is important, but important because it fits into a larger and more complex convergence. The text doesn't just require cement, but it requires cement in a particular place and in a particular context. The text requires that cement be an important identifier of a site that is north of Nephite lands (a larger, but unindicated distance). It has to be in a land of waters, and it has to be in an area essentially devoid of trees such that wood has to be shipped in. This location must exist in AD 200 and probably continue until later. Cement in Teotihuacan fits the complex of requirements, not just the simple one of finding cement anything anywhere--at any time.

[Robert F. Smith]

Personally not convinced by chiasms or hebraisms. There are too many examples of hebraisms in works like The Late War... or in the D&C (both clearly not of ancient origin) to see this as credible.

The only Hebraisms (usually also good Egyptianisms) which should ever be considered as diagnostic are those which were not available in the KJV or other source already available to Joseph and his contemporaries.  Only those items which are novel and could not have been known at that time are useful.

 

I'll try and find an example of a chiasm I saw while reading 3 Nephi a while back which could equally be an example of someone simple repeating themselves, backwards. The first half of the chiasm was an, almost, verbatim quote from the KJV of the Bible. The second half (the chiastic part) was the same message of the quoted section but said broadly in reverse.

Chiasmus is only one of dozens of rhetorical forms available to writers and editors, and may not even be discernable to unsophisticated readers.  So better, more direct textual features ought to be brought forward for discussion.

 

Take, for example, repetition in separate parts of a book of the same material (or same story) told in a slightly different way or in a different genre of literature.*  One instance of this is the same story told as narrative in Mormon 4, but then repeated in the form of an epistle in Moroni 9.  Another instance is the same story of the Conversion of Alma the Younger in three separate loci (Mosiah 27, Alma 36, and Alma 38) -- James Faulconer displays the relationships in columnar form in his The Book of Mormon Made Harder (Maxwell Institute, BYU, 2014), Appendix 2.

 

Such features are rarely noticed by the reader, but careful analysis of the text can disclose many similar items.  It is difficult to imagine Joseph Smith managing or coordinating such a complex text.  Grant Hardy's Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010), demonstrates the intricacies of the text better than any other source, leading Hardy to conclude:

 

If the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, it is more intricate and clever than has heretofore been acknowledged. (xv)

 

* One finds this in the Bible at Exodus 13:17 - 14:30 & 15:1-21; and in Judges 4 & 5

[Robert F. Smith]

I shouldn't have said he claimed it was proven.

He says:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-reading-mormons-codex

I'm fairly sure there's a stronger statement in his book intro. I'll try to dig it out.

Yeh, I go along with his statement on plausibility.