Explaining Book Of Mormon Anachronisms

[Robert F. Smith]

Why do you believe Nephi would be using a Mesoamerican calendar rather than the one he and his family were raised using?

Nephi did not create the Small Plates until long after his arrival in the New World.  I merely suggest (as did John Sorenson), based on inductive reasoning, that the Nephites adopted the local calendric systems for a variety of purposes (while also still keeping their own Hebrew calendar for a time), just as Jews have typically adopted the calendars and other features of the cultures where they lived while in Diaspora.

 

The most compelling inductive reason is that only the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar fits the prophecy of 600 years till Jesus' birth.  It also accounts for his most likely death date. No other system works, but you are welcome to suggest one.

 

Happy Roman New Year, omni !!

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm trying to get this supposed chronology straight in my own mind,

(if I may add a word or two here) in order to better understand things.

 

Noah leaves North America in a big boat, just before the entire earth

is inundated with the waters of the deep and the waters of the firmament,

reducing the western hemisphere continent to a muddy mess.

 

About the time things had dried up enough to again support life, the

Jaredites arrive -- bringing with them a 360-day calendar (if I understand

the argument correctly). It becomes one of their several calendars, and

they call themselves Olmecs (or somebody eventually calls them that).

 

The Lehites and Mulekites adopt one of the many Olmec calendars --

perhaps because of Divine commandment (or at least approval), such

that it can be quoted in the sacred records and still be kosher.

 

Then, at some indefinite point, after the Golden Age of Peace mentioned

in 4th Nephi, the American Indians begin crossing over from Siberia, and

end the age of Universal Christianity, when in all of the face of the land

there were no other "ites" than the blessed Nephites.

 

Eventually these Siberians migrate down into MesoAmerica, killing off

(or displacing) those descendants of the Olmec who survived the time

of Coriantumr. The last of the Nephites get exterminated, and these

sons of Siberia adopt the Olmec calendar(s), once used by the Jaredites

and Nephites (r.i.p.)

 

Thus, the first advent of Jesus the Son of Mary is prophesied in accord

with the Jaredite (Olmec) calendar, which is kosher for recording events

of a sacred nature -- not having been derived by heathen Siberians, but

by the Chosen People of the Land of Promise, ere the Aztecs, Navajos,

and others of their ilk ever took up residence in the Inheritance of Joseph.

 

Did I miss anything?

 

UD

Not so much missed everything as bollixed it royally, Uncle Dale.  So I would recommend that you try some nice coffee table style atlases on ancient America, with lots of illustrations.  The latest issue of National Geographic has some excellent charts and maps which could help you out -- although even they are far too cautious.  Once you have in hand a sound chronology based on professional anthropology, then you might try inserting the Book of Mormon into the mix.  You seem to have adopted the opposite approach.

 

We do not know when the Jaredites formulated their Long Count and other calendars, but it was apparently at least half-way through their long existence that they truly flourished.  So, no, we have no direct evidence that they brought it to the New World from the Old World.  On the other hand, 360 was a key number in Mesopotamian lore, part of an overarching sexigesimal system, part of which we have inherited in the West.

 

Peoples began migrating into the New World at least by 24,000 years ago, making the Jaredites latecomers ca. 3,100 B.C.  Good maps in a large atlas can help you see which tribal and linguistic groups move into which areas and when.  The Aztecs, for example, are late and post-Book of Mormon.

 

The Nephites and Lamanites likely adopted multiple calendars for different purposes, as did other Mesoamericans.

 

The word "Olmec" is fairly recent, and is used only to designate the first great civilization in Mesoamerica.  We call them "Jaredites," but we have no idea what they called themselves.

[MormonFreeThinker]

4. Joseph made it up

 

Most critics are absolutely certain of that. 

Edited January 2, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[canard78]

Most critics are absolutely certain of that. 

 

Come on!! It had a winky-smiley... where's the season of good will?

 

 

...

 

 

[Uncle Dale]

Most critics are absolutely certain of that. 

 

 

I was once told this, as fact -- and I suppose perhaps it is.

 

The world's population can be divided into three distinct groups:

 

1. Those who believe Joseph Smith fabricated the book = far, far, far, far less than 1%

 

2. Those who believe that that book was written by ancient Americans = less than 1%

 

3. Those who do not care and who would have no opinion if asked = more than 99%

 

My ancestors fit nicely into group #2 -- while the profs who taught me "Restoration

History" at Graceland, pretty much fell into the group #1 category.

 

With assurance, I'll assign my current neighbors, friends and associates to #3.

 

And that leaves me -- the lonely, Last Mohican, of an extinct race, in group #4.

 

Oh well...

 

UD

[canard78]

I was once told this, as fact -- and I suppose perhaps it is.

The world's population can be divided into three distinct groups:

1. Those who believe Joseph Smith fabricated the book = far, far, far, far less than 1%

2. Those who believe that that book was written by ancient Americans = less than 1%

3. Those who do not care and who would have no opinion if asked = more than 99%

My ancestors fit nicely into group #2 -- while the profs who taught me "Restoration

History" at Graceland, pretty much fell into the group #1 category.

With assurance, I'll assign my current neighbors, friends and associates to #3.

And that leaves me -- the lonely, Last Mohican, of an extinct race, in group #4.

Oh well...

UD

What's group #4

I agree though. Most people have probably barely given it 5 minutes consideration.

[Nevo]

What's group #4

 

Uncle Dale belongs to the dwindling but hardy tribe of Spalding-Rigdon theorists.

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale belongs to the dwindling but hardy tribe of Spalding-Rigdon theorists.

You forgot to mention Cousin Oliver and Mother Smith...

But, perhaps I should stop at this point.

They say that the improbability of any conspiracy theory

grows exponentially with each new supposed conspirator

added to the list.

After four or five purported "authors" are proposed, the

probability of the theory approaches zero.

Oh well...

UD

[Michael Sanders]

The most compelling inductive reason is that only the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar fits the prophecy of 600 years till Jesus' birth.  It also accounts for his most likely death date. No other system works, but you are welcome to suggest one.

 

Robert,

 

So how does this align with John Pratt, http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/easter/dating.html wherein we read:

 

 

The Book of Mormon specifically states that the destruction happened on the fourth day of the thirty-fourth year. (3 Ne. 8:5.) Thus, if the Savior was born on the first day of the first Nephite year and died on the fourth day of their thirty-fourth year, then the length of his life was thirty-three Nephite years plus three days.

 

It follows, then, that if the length of the Nephite year were known, one could calculate an exact number of days for the length of the Savior's life.

 

At first glance, the obvious candidate for a Nephite calendar would probably be the Jewish lunisolar calendar, because the Nephites came from Jerusalem and kept the law of Moses. However, that choice does not seem to fit the Nephite reckoning because they record that Jesus died on the fourth day of the Nephite month (3 Ne. 8:5), not on the fourteenth day (John 19:14). Thus, the Jewish lunisolar calendar is apparently excluded.

 

Orson Pratt was the first to suggest that the Nephite year would probably have been the 365-day year of the Mesoamerican calendar.^[41] If this was the case, the length of the Savior's life would have been 33 x 365 + 3 = 12,048 days. The Mesoamerican calendar yields this figure so easily because in that calendar the period of 33 years is not complicated by the addition of leap days.^[42] On our Gregorian calendar, however, one leap day is added every 4 years that is, 8 leap days in the 33-year period of Jesus' life. Hence, 33 years plus 3 days on a Mesoamerican calendar would represent the same elapsed time as 33 years minus 5 days on our Gregorian calendar.^[43]

…

Secondly, if one assumes (1) that Jesus was born on the first day of the Nephite first year, and (2) that the Nephites used a 365-day calendar, then Jesus lived 5 days less than 33 of our years, or 12,048 days.

…

1. Several latter-day statements support 1 B.C. as the year of Jesus' birth. In addition, a precise day is indicated: 6 April 1 B.C.

2. The Book of Mormon implies that Jesus lived thirty-three years, confirming the biblical testimony. Moreover, an exact length for the Savior's life can be suggesed: 12,048 days.

3. The New Testament indicates a precise day that is most likely for the Savior's resurrection: Sunday, 3 April A.D. 33.

An obvious question arises: Are all of these conclusions self-consistent? This question can be answered precisely. Counting 12,048 days (5 days less than 33 years) from Thursday, 6 April 1 B.C., brings one to Friday, 14 Nisan, 1 April A.D. 33 the exact Crucifixion date deduced from the Bible!

 

  

It appears from Pratt's research and calculations that the 365 day year works quite nicely.  What are the problems with his research from your point of view?  Why are these dates not workable?

 

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

[Brant Gardner]

I think a more important question is why would Lehi and his family be using a Mesoamerican calendar?

We need to be wary of any simplistic assumptions about calendars. There was a lunar and solar calendar available in the Old World prior to Lehi's departure, and the lunar calendar was more prevalent (from what I have read). The intertestamental times saw a shift to the solar calendar, and a reaction from the Qumran community to return to the "true" calendar.

 

In the New World there were multiple simultaneous calendars. So one might be used for noting history but a different one used for more seasonal uses.

 

So why would Lehi and his family shift to a Mesoamerican calendar? Of course the answer is speculation, but speculation built on comparisons to other situations in human history. Lehi and his family had to have met and merged with existing populations (the only solution for several facets of the text, even though it is never explicitly described). They would also be rather forced to adopt to the new language, even as they kept their own writing system and language. In those conditions, and made easier by their heritage of a slightly different lunar calendar from the Old World, the adoption of the same system as the larger community around them is more than logical.

[Gervin]

They say that the improbability of any conspiracy theory

grows exponentially with each new supposed conspirator

added to the list.

After four or five purported "authors" are proposed, the

probability of the theory approaches zero.

Oh well...

UD

 

On the other hand, wouldn't the probability of an intentional fraud grow exponentially with each new example of themes, ideas, phrases and words found in extant, yet available, sources during the time the book was written? 

[Michael Sanders]

On the other hand, wouldn't the probability of an intentional fraud grow exponentially with each new example of themes, ideas, phrases and words found in extant, yet available, sources during the time the book was written?

So let me get this straight - the likelihood of deception grows "exponentially with each new example of themes, ideas, phrases, and words found extant" with other sources available at the time of the production of the Book of Mormon - but does not increase "exponentially" the unlikelihood of it being a product of his milieu for elements found that the translator could have never anticipated? The record was not created in a vacuum and we should expect some artifacts of his language/culture in the translation layer as Brant and others have long since noted. But that alone doesn't account for the sheer complexity of the text and all the elements that were not available when the book was written. Nevermind that many of the "intentional fraud" theories have never panned out under closer scrutiny. So now the record is held to account for even the "misses" but gets no credit for the actual "hits" that are plausible for what it purports to be.  Nice!

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

Edited January 6, 2015 by Michael Sanders

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

Why should Mormons believe in the Book of Mormon when it completely contradicts Mormon theology ?

[Uncle Dale]

So let me get this straight - the likelihood of deception grows "exponentially with each new example of themes, ideas, phrases, and words found extant" with other sources available at the time of the production of the Book of Mormon - but does not increase "exponentially" the unlikelihood of it being a product of his milieu for elements found that the translator could have never anticipated? The record was not created in a vacuum and we should expect some artifacts of his language/culture in the translation layer as Brant and others have long since noted. But that alone doesn't account for the sheer complexity of the text and all the elements that were not available when the book was written. Nevermind that many of the "intentional fraud" theories have never panned out under closer scrutiny. So now the record is held to account for even the "misses" but gets no credit for the actual "hits" that are plausible for what it purports to be.

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

 

 

Well, it sort of falls out in this way --

 

If Dr. John Stafford (next door neighbor of the Smith at Manchester)

says that the local folks concluded that Mother Smith was in on

the conspiracy to fabricate the text of a Gold Bible, then adding her

name along side Joseph's in the probable authorship attribution

also adds a certain degree of improbability to the theory.

 

Then, if one-time Palmyra resident Orsamus Turner also points

to Mother Smith as a co-conspirator, then that additional testimony

serves to lessen the improbability, slightly, perhaps.

 

However, Turner also added Oliver Cowdery's name to the list --

resulting in three co-conspirators; which is more improbable

than two such writers, by an exponentially larger degree.

 

Any purported "evidence" linking Oliver Cowdery or Mother Smith

to the book's composition may serve to meliorate the improbability

somewhat (depending upon the reliability of the source, etc.) but

the fact remains that two authors (working in a conspiracy) is less

probable than a single, secretive witer. And three such literary

conspirators would be vastly more improbable.

 

If we add in Alvin Smith (as Mr. Turner seems to have done) then

the resulting theory of four Book of Mormon authorship conspirators

is ever so much more unlikely than the supposition of three...

 

And on, and on.

 

That is why conspiracy theories for Book of Mormon authorship

require extraordinary amounts of compelling evidence -- even to

find acceptance among non-Mormons who disbelieve in Nephites.

 

UD

Edited January 5, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Robert F. Smith]

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

The world's population can be divided into three distinct groups:

 

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

You got it wrong, Uncle Dale.  There are only three kinds of people in the world:

1. Those who make things happen.

2. Those who watch things happen.

3. Those who wonder what happened.

 

I frequently find myself in group three.    

[Michael Sanders]

You got it wrong, Uncle Dale.  There are only three kinds of people in the world:

1. Those who make things happen.

2. Those who watch things happen.

3. Those who wonder what happened.

 

I frequently find myself in group three.    

And don't forget the folks who say it never happened!!!

[Uncle Dale]

And don't forget the folks who say it never happened!!!

 

Ah, he just wonders "what happened" to the

"Came to Pass" study.

 

The web-site went down, and needs to be re-built.

But this much still survived:

 

http://premormon.com/resources/r003/003Smith.pdf

 

So, as Paul Harvey used to say --

"Now you know the rest of the story"

 

UD

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert,

 

So how does this align with John Pratt, http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/easter/dating.html wherein we read:

 

  

It appears from Pratt's research and calculations that the 365 day year works quite nicely.  What are the problems with his research from your point of view?  Why are these dates not workable?

 

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

I took a look at Orson Pratt's figures over thirty years ago, and he came as close as anyone to finding a solution to the chronological issues, but he was hampered by lack of modern archeological data, and John Pratt has likewise neglected some very important strictures -- even if one allows his April 6, 1 B.C. nativity of Jesus.

 

The problem inheres in three separate coordinates which have to be taken together:  The 1st year of the reign of King Zedekiah of Judah, which began in early 597 B.C., the birthdate of Jesus 600 "years" later, and the lifespan of Jesus at 33 years, 3 days.  John Pratt's solution just doesn't work.  Various forms of solar, lunar, and vague years have been tried and none fit, unless one assumes that a Book of Mormon writer made an error (which is always possible).  Occam's Razor (parsimony) leaves us with only one successful system, that is the Mesoamerican Long Count of 360-day years, as first proposed by John L. Sorenson.  Do the math.

 

Moreover, consider the words of Mesoamerican anthropologist, John E. Clark, who observed that “a correspondence that has always impressed me involves prophecies in 400-year blocks.”

 

The Maya were obsessed with time, and they carved precise dates on their stone monuments that began with a count of 400 years, an interval called a bactun.  Each bactun was made up of twenty katuns, an extremely important twenty-year interval. . . , Samuel the Lamanite warned the Nephites that one bactun shall not pass away before they would be smitten.  Nephi and Alma uttered the same bactun prophecy, and Moroni recorded its fulfillment.  Moroni bids us farewell just after the first katun of this final bactun, or 420 years since the sign was given of the coming of Christ.  What are the chances of Joseph Smith guessing correctly the vigesimal system of timekeeping and prophesying among the Maya?  Clark, “Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief,” May 25, 2004, lecture at BYU, an excerpt online at http://mormanity.blogspot.com/search?q=john+e.+clark , but the entire speech can be heard at http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=1277&tid= .

.

[Michael Sanders]

The problem inheres in three separate coordinates which have to be taken together:  The 1st year of the reign of King Zedekiah of Judah, which began in early 597 B.C., the birthdate of Jesus 600 "years" later, and the lifespan of Jesus at 33 years, 3 days.  John Pratt's solution just doesn't work.  Various forms of solar, lunar, and vague years have been tried and none fit, unless one assumes that a Book of Mormon writer made an error (which is always possible).  Occam's Razor (parsimony) leaves us with only one successful system, that is the Mesoamerican Long Count of 360-day years, as first proposed by John L. Sorenson.  Do the math.

I've examined this over the years and aside from the potential mistake by the abridger or that the 600 year prophecy being an approximate timeframe (although the 12 jubilee cycles is interesting) - I've tried to work backwards on this due to the calendrical problems, dating Herod's death, etc...using the 33 year lifespan.  If we accept a Friday crucifixion (good reasons for this) scholars tell us that Nisan 14 fell on a Friday twice between the years 26-34 A.D. - 7 April A.D. 30 and 3 April A.D. 33.  So using your math so you think he was crucified on 7 April A.D. 30?

 

http://www.bethlehemstar.net/the-day-of-the-cross/dating-the-crucifixion/

 

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

[Robert F. Smith]

Why should Mormons believe in the Book of Mormon when it completely contradicts Mormon theology ?

Hey, welcome to this board, even though your comment here is completely outlandish.

 

It may be that you have never read the Book of Mormon, and it may also be that you know nothing about LDS theology.  The two are actually well matched.  Indeed, Bible, Book of Mormon, and LDS theology are a very nice, united threesome.  If you doubt that, please have a look at my “Book of Mormon Theologies: A Thumbnail Sketch,” lecture delivered at the September 2012 annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT), at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/251781864/BOOK-OF-MORMON-THEOLOGIES-A-THUMBNAIL-SKETCH .

[omni]

We need to be wary of any simplistic assumptions about calendars. There was a lunar and solar calendar available in the Old World prior to Lehi's departure, and the lunar calendar was more prevalent (from what I have read). The intertestamental times saw a shift to the solar calendar, and a reaction from the Qumran community to return to the "true" calendar.

 

In the New World there were multiple simultaneous calendars. So one might be used for noting history but a different one used for more seasonal uses.

 

So why would Lehi and his family shift to a Mesoamerican calendar? Of course the answer is speculation, but speculation built on comparisons to other situations in human history. Lehi and his family had to have met and merged with existing populations (the only solution for several facets of the text, even though it is never explicitly described). They would also be rather forced to adopt to the new language, even as they kept their own writing system and language. In those conditions, and made easier by their heritage of a slightly different lunar calendar from the Old World, the adoption of the same system as the larger community around them is more than logical.

I guess what I find difficult to believe is that Nephi and his family not only encounters the aboriginal population, but takes on much of its culture and language, yet there is no mention of this in the text or by modern prophets. You would know much better than I, is it common for people to take on a foreign culture and language without ever a mention of said peoples in their writings? Other religious texts of Nephi's time and culture such as the Bible certainly mention foreign peoples.

[Robert F. Smith]

I've examined this over the years and aside from the potential mistake by the abridger or that the 600 year prophecy being an approximate timeframe (although the 12 jubilee cycles is interesting) - I've tried to work backwards on this due to the calendrical problems, dating Herod's death, etc...using the 33 year lifespan.  If we accept a Friday crucifixion (good reasons for this) scholars tell us that Nisan 14 fell on a Friday twice between the years 26-34 A.D. - 7 April A.D. 30 and 3 April A.D. 33.  So using your math so you think he was crucified on 7 April A.D. 30?

 

http://www.bethlehemstar.net/the-day-of-the-cross/dating-the-crucifixion/

 

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

No, but PM me your email address, and I'll send a paper by me to you explaining how I see the complexities.

[Uncle Dale]

I guess what I find difficult to believe is that Nephi and his family not only encounters the aboriginal population, but takes on much of its culture and language, yet there is no mention of this in the text or by modern prophets. You would know much better than I, is it common for people to take on a foreign culture and language without ever a mention of said peoples in their writings?...

 

A possible analog might be found in the "Peoples of the Sea"

invasion of the Gaza region -- The "Philistines" of the Hebrew

Bible. No doubt they adopted some of the local diet and whatever

local technology was particularly useful.

 

But "Philistine" sites remain foreign intrusions -- identifiable by

their unique ceramic shards and other hallmarks of a culture

more related to the Mycenaeans than to Semitic Canaanites.

 

Eventually they were overcome, blended in, faded away.

At that point, when their culture was being obliterated, the

descendants of the Sea Peoples probably adopted Semitic

language, calendar, deities -- leaving only "Palestine" as

their lasting, linguistic contribution to the landscape.

 

But, in their palmy days, did they both worship Dagon and

plant their crops by the "Israelite" calendar? I wonder...

 

My ancestors would have turned up their noses in disgust,

at the innovation of "any other manner of ites" residing in

the Americas during 4th Nephi's Golden Age of Peace. But

modern Mormons seem to think that Nephites and Sioux,

Jaredites and Utes, lived cheek by jowl -- so closely resembling

one another as to leave indistinguishable rubbish heaps, ruins

and layers of fossil Old World wheat pollen in the annual strata

of ancient lake bottoms.

 

Does anybody, other than Mormons, really believe such stuff?

 

UD

[guerreiro9]

Why should Mormons believe in the Book of Mormon when it completely contradicts Mormon theology ?

I've often wondered the same thing about Catholics and the Bible

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

Does anybody, other than Mormons, really believe such stuff?

 

UD

Go read a couple of books by Mike Coe, and then come back and ask in a realistic context.  Then we will have some idea of what that "stuff" is, and how it relates to the BofM.