Where are we with the Book of Mormon

[waveslider]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Did God speak to you directly, or did you have a feeling that you interpreted to be a message from God? Is your interpretation of feelings fool proof? I only ask because I know mine isn't.

I personally had direct words given to me, in conjunction with feelings (The word, "feelings," doesn't actually describe properly what I experienced, but I can find no better word either,)

[waveslider]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I guess it's possible it all fits very nicely and neatly together for you.  But for me it doesn't and I have yet to see evidence it does for anyone.  We might get scattered and random peaks into eternity through inspiration, but when we try and piece it together we seem to be left on our own.  That's primarily why the guy down the street maintains his spiritual witness that Mormonism is not true is as valid as the guy next door who says it is true.  I don't know you interpret what they mean by true or untrue.  I'm just saying, this ain't so easy.  I guess to some it may be, but not to me. 

This very reason is why we are asked to pray, ponder, search the scriptures, and repent enough to actually have His guidance, all the time, for the rest of our lives. In time these answers that seem to never be able to fit nicely together, or even seem to be in direct opposition to each other, will end up fitting perfectly once more of the big picture is seen, in a line upon line, precept upon precept type of learning.

[bcuzbcuz]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

If the BOM is not historical, it does not necessarily follow that Joseph was a fraud. The church essays already approve of the catalyst theory with respect to the BOA. Under that theory, Joseph was factually wrong in thinking that he was translating from the papyri, but he was not a fraud. Couldn't it be possible that Joseph (and Oliver and the others) were factually mistaken as to the plates and visions, but that God nonetheless worked through their mistakes to restore many great and important things pertaining to the children of men?

Is that pretzel logic? I certainly feel twisted after reading it.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Please go ahead and distinguish the BOA.

That's probably a topic for another thread.  But here are a few points that merit attention:

1. The BOA involves an actual ancient artifact, whereas the "Inspired Fiction" concept requires Joseph Smith to have fabricated a set of plates and then lied about them.  Fraud and deceit are inherent components of the "Inspired Fiction" proposal.

2. We don't know what the papyrus contained (well, I guess we believe they contain the information translated into what we call the BoA, but even that is a bit open for wiggle room given the Church's position on the catalyst theory, see below).  We only have a small percentage of the papyri held by Joseph Smith (see, e.g., here, here, and here).

3. At no point has the LDS Church promulgated a theory that The Book of Abraham is a work of fiction, that Abraham was a fictional person, etc.

4. The Gospel Topics essay about The Book of Abraham acknowledges the "catalyst" theory regarding how The Book of Abraham was translated, but does not impute fraud or deceit onto Joseph Smith.  In contrast, the existence of the plates and the testimony of the witnesses necessarily requires the "Inspired Fiction" folks to accuse Joseph Smith of fraudulent/deceitful behavior (such as fabricating a set of plates and passing them off as an ancient artifact, tricking or colluding with the Witnesses regarding the plates, etc.).

5. The catalyst concept (which, I should note, is only presented as a theory by the Church) still allows for historicity.  That is, that Abraham did really exist, really had the experiences described in the BOA, etc., but that "the papyri provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation" and "catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri."  In contrast, the "Inspired Fiction" necessarily requires wholesale rejection of pretty much everything presented in The Book of Mormon (it is "fiction," therefore Lehi did not exist, nor did Lehi, nor did any of their descendants, none of the events described in the text take place, including the visitation of Jesus Christ in 3 Nephi, and Joseph Smith was lying or deluded/insane when he claims to have been visited by a resurrected Nephite named Moroni, that there were actual physical plates, that those plates were of ancient origin, that an angel descended from heaven and showed these plates to the Three Witnesses ("we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon...") that this happened "by the gift and power of God," and on and on and on).

Quote

In some ways, the BOA is harder to justify because we still have many portions of the papyri.

We have, by John Gee's reckoning, about 13% or less of the papyri.

Quote

Yet Joseph's "translation" does not match the papyri.

Given that we may only have a small portion of the papyri, this is not much of an indictment.  See here (emphases added):

Quote

{E}yewitness accounts from Joseph Smith’s day agree that the Book of Abraham was on the long roll. Through museum documents we can corroborate that the long roll was sold to the Chicago museum. Unfortunately, it was destroyed by fire in 1871.  The small portion on the outside of that roll seems to have been cut off and mounted for its protection (it is always the outermost edge of a scroll that is damaged the most, and Joseph must have felt that this damaged piece needed preservation efforts). Because this part of the scroll was glued to paper that dates back to the Kirtland period, and eyewitness accounts agree that the Book of Abraham was translated from the large roll after the fragments had been cut off, eyewitnesses of the papyri during the Nauvoo period did not think that the fragments we have today contained the Book of Abraham. Again, we are forced to conclude from the historical evidence at hand that the fragments we now have are not the source of the Book of Abraham.

Given the problems with the assumption that the text surrounding Facsimile 1 was the source of the Book of Abraham and the fact that we possess only a small percentage of the original papyrus roll on which Facsimile 1 was drawn (perhaps about 5 percent), we must conclude that it is most unlikely and foolhardy to insist that the text adjoining Facsimile 1 must be the text of the Book of Abraham. Yet critics insist on this faulty assumption.

...

Gee has estimated that the scroll anciently owned by Seminis (the shorter roll) would have been about twenty to twenty-four feet long.  The longer scroll (which contained Facsimile 1) was anciently owned by a priest named Horus. It is estimated to have been over forty-two feet long.  This combined evidence paints a convincing picture that Joseph Smith had a large quantity of papyrus in his possession. Because it t is very common for a papyrus roll to have writing on both sides, a conservative estimate approximates over eighty feet of text on the roll that contained Facsimile 1. These findings indicate that we have only about 2.5 percent of what Joseph originally had. Clearly there was room for the Book of Breathings, the Book of Abraham, and a host of other texts on the long roll. During that time, it was not uncommon to have multiple texts on a single papyrus.

So there is plenty of room for Latter-day Saints to accommodate the historicity of The Book of Abraham.  No need to accuse Joseph Smith of lying, being deluded/insane, etc.

Quote

That could be because he was fraud.

Yes, that would be the approach taken by critics and skeptics.  But there is also room for a faithful approach to the BOA, one that allows us to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet without imputing onto him lies and deceit and conspiracies.

Quote

Or it could be that he misunderstood his work. 

I don't know what this means.  Where did the text of the BOA come from, in your view?  Did Joseph Smith consciously and fraudulently craft it?  Did he conspire with someone else to write it?  Did he unconsciously write the text, thinking it was coming from God when it did not?

The LDS Church's position is that The Book of Abraham is a translation of ancient writings of Abraham.  The LDS Church's position is not that Abraham never existed, that the text is fictional, etc.

Quote

Likewise, Joseph could be mistaken that the plates he held had any relation to the BOM, he could be mistaken that he had visitations from angels, his companions could have the same mistakes, and it good could still come of their work.

What does this mean?  You concede that the plates existed ("the plates he held...").  Where did these plates come from?  

Did Joseph find them buried in a hill, or not?  

Did he fabricate them?  

Did someone (other than Moroni) give them to him?  

If so, why did he lie about an angel leading him to them as they lay buried in a hill?

How do you account for the testimony of the Three Witnesses?  Were they all lying?  

Were they collectively deluded/insane at the same moment in time?  If so, how did they all experience the exact same delusion?

How do you account for the testimony of the Eight Witnesses?  If Joseph fabricated plates, and if he showed them to the Witnesses, and if he encouraged them to testify about the plates, he did these things under false pretenses, with an intent to deceive, did he not?

Coming back to Joseph, how do you account for the voluminous angelic visitations he claimed to have experienced (some lists are available here and here)?  Was he lying about all of them?  Some of them?  Just the ones pertaining to The Book of Mormon?

Did a resurrected Nephite named Moroni appear to Joseph multiples times, or not?  If he did appear to Joseph, did he lie to Joseph?  Or did he tell Joseph to lie?  Did he tell Joseph to fabricate plates and pass them off as an ancient record?

I really don't understand this vague, nebulous stuff you folks keep throwing around.  With respect, it comes across as rather . . . evasive.  Couldn't you just come out and explain these things?  Why hide your viewpoint, your alternative theory for origins of The Book of Mormon?  Do you even have an alternative theory?  

Quote

If the church can allow for members to believe that God allowed Joseph to misunderstand the papyri, why wouldn't the church allow a similar conclusion with respect to the plates and Moroni?

I have said this multiple times, but it bears repeating: As much as I disagree with the "Inspired Fiction" folks, I welcome them as members of the Church.

Similarly, I welcome members of the Church who vacillate in having a testimony of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.  

I also welcome members of the Church who resort to private interpretations of doctrines to suit their personal preferences, even when such interpretations contravene the scriptures and the teachings of the Church.

I also welcome members of the Church who harbor racist sentiments toward black people or any other racial/ethnic group.

I also welcome members of the Church who ignore/disregard the counsel of modern prophets and apostles.

And so on.

I don't think rejecting the historicity of The Book of Mormon would warrant discipline.  However, for myself, I could see it as precluding a temple recommend.  I could not in good faith reject a central component of the Restored Gospel, the "keystone of our religion," for what it claims to be, and also reject all the testimonies and statements that pertain to it by Joseph Smith, the Witnesses, Emma Smith, Oliver Cowdery, etc., and yet also affirm that I have  "a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days."  For me, that would simply not be honest.

We are all fellow travelers in the Restored Gospel.  I think we should seek to welcome each other and try to help each other advance in our knowledge of and adherence to the Restored Gospel.  Such efforts will, on occasion, include clarifying or correcting errors.  

With that said, I think I'll bow out of this thread.  I've said my piece.  I don't want to argue the point further, as I do not want to risk alienating fellow members of the Church because they disagree with me about this point.  Please consider all of the foregoing questions as rhetorical, food-for-thought observations.  I wish you well.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited August 18, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do you accept the Book of Abraham for what it claims to be-

Yes.

Quote

the words of Abraham,

Yes.  Translated by Joseph Smith through divine means, the particulars of which are unknown and unexplained.

Quote

written by his own hand upon papyrus?

Well, that's an interesting point.  What is meant by "written by his own hand upon papyrus?"  I take it that you interpret that as something like "the papyri which came to be held by Joseph Smith were essentially something like a holograph ("a document written entirely in the handwriting of the person whose signature it bears").  That is, the papyri held by Joseph Smith were the exact same papyri upon which Abraham physically had in his possession and wrote on, parts of which writings constitute what we now know as The Book of Abraham.  Is that a correct statement of your view?

For me, I am open to that, but also to . . . something different.  See, e.g., this article by Stephen Smoot:

Quote

Critics of Joseph Smith have ridiculed the claim that the Book of Abraham was purportedly written “by his [Abraham’s] own hand, upon papyrus.” ... The criticism, as has been repeated in many parts of the Internet and beyond, usually runs something like this: (1) Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Abraham was written “by his own hand, upon papyrus,” meaning Abraham himself handwrote the text Joseph Smith translated. (2) The surviving papyri fragments date to circa 200–150 BCE. (3) Abraham, by contrast, is usually dated to having lived circa 2000 BCE. (4) Therefore, Joseph Smith’s claim that the Book of Abraham was written “by his own hand, upon papyrus” is false. (5) Therefore, the Book of Abraham is not authentic, or, therefore, Joseph Smith was a false prophet.

This seems to be the most common narrative from members who are skeptical about the origins of the BOA.  More:

Quote

The first thing that we must address is whether this phrase “by his own hand, upon papyrus” was ever anciently part of the Book of Abraham (assuming that Joseph Smith translated an ancient text and did not receive the text by pure revelation). Hugh Nibley seemed to think so, and argued that the ancient name of the text would have been “the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.”  If this is the case, then how are we to understand this claim that the text was written “by his own hand”? Must we assume that this implies the text was a holograph of the prophet Abraham, meaning Abraham himself sat down, reed pen and papyrus in hand, and jotted down the very manuscript received by Joseph Smith in 1835?

That's an interesting question.  Let's continue!

Quote

Not necessarily. As both Nibley and more recently John Gee have observed, the phrase “by his own hand,” or something like it, was used in ancient Egypt simply to denote authorship.  The same is true, actually, of some of the books of the Hebrew Bible. Consider these examples, all taken from the New Revised Standard Version.

• Malachi 1:1 – “An oracle. The word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi.”
• Haggai 1:1 – “In the second year of King Darius, in the sixth month, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came by the prophet Haggai to Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest.”
• Haggai 2:1 – “In the second year of King Darius, in the seventh month, on the twenty-first day of the month, the word of the Lord came by the prophet Haggai.”
• Zechariah 7:7 – “Were not these the words that the Lord proclaimed by the former prophets?”
• Zechariah 7:12 – “They made their hearts adamant in order not to hear the law and the words that the Lord of hosts had sent by his spirit through the former prophets.”

The Hebrew text in each highlighted instance above literally reads “by the hand” (bĕ yad), even though it is rendered by modern translators as simply “by” (or, in the last case, “through”).  The reason for this is obvious: this idiom (“by the hand of so-and-so”) is merely the ancient equivalent of the modern “by so-and-so,” as in “Great Expectations by Charles ****ens,” “Nathan der Weise by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing,” or “The Call of Cthulhu by H. P. Lovecraft.”

...

Kerry Muhlestein helpfully explained back in 2011.

Quote

Critics say that if this papyrus was written in the second century BC it could not possibly have been written by Abraham himself. In regard to this assumption, I ask, who said this particular papyrus was written by Abraham himself? The heading does not indicate that Abraham had     written that particular copy but rather that he was the author of the original. What these critics have done is confuse the difference between a text and a manuscript. . . . A text, regardless of how many copies of it exist in the world, is written by one author. However, each copy of that text is a manuscript. The earliest known copies of the book of Isaiah date to hundreds of years after the prophet’s death. Yet this has not led to the conclusion that Isaiah was not the author of the book of Isaiah. Clearly the manuscripts we have are copies of the original text that he wrote during         his lifetime. We all know that when an author of the ancient world wrote something, if those writings were to survive or be disseminated, the text had to be copied again and again and again, for generation upon generation. When the heading states that the text was written by Abraham’s own hand, it notes who the author is, not who copied down the   particular manuscript that came into Joseph’s possession. If critics had carefully thought through this issue, they would never have raised it.

 

Give the entire thing a read.  It's worthwhile, I think.

Quote

Or do you let that slide.

Nope.  I haven't let it slide.  I've given it a fair amount of thought.

Quote

If Joseph could be wrong about the BoA, is it not possible he was also wrong about the particulars of the BoM?

"Could be wrong about the BoA" is so broad as to be meaningless.  And I do not know what you mean by "wrong about the particulars of the BoM."  "Wrong" in what sense?  Did the Angel Moroni visit him, or not?  For the "Inspired Fiction" folks, the answer is necessarily "not" (since The Book of Mormon is, by definition, "fictional," there was no Lehi, hence no Nephi, hence no descendant named Mormon, hence no son of Mormon names Moroni, hence no being who was resurrected and appeared to Joseph Smith).  

And what about the plates?  Did they exist, or not?  

If they did not exist, how did Joseph persuaded the Witnesses and Emma to lie about them?  

Or did he deceive them somehow?  Did he fabricate plates and then tell everyone he knew for the rest of his life that he found them buried in a hill after being led to them by a resurrected prophet?  If so, did God tell him to engage in such lies and deceit?  Or was that Joseph's idea?

Quote

When asked the "restoration of the gospel" TR question can one reasonably answer they have a testimony of the restoration even if they don't believe Abraham wrote on the papyrus that was then directly translated by Joseph Smith?

I believe so.  But then, I think the BOA is quite distinguishable from The Book of Mormon in this respect (see my previous post on this point).

I'm trying to bow out of this thread, so please consider the above questions as rhetorical, food-for-thought types of things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 18, 2016 by smac97

[bcuzbcuz]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

Yes.  Translated by Joseph Smith through divine means, the particulars of which are unknown and unexplained.

Well, that's an interesting point.  What is meant by "written by his own hand upon papyrus?"  I take it that you interpret that as something like "the papyri which came to be held by Joseph Smith were essentially something like a holograph ("a document written entirely in the handwriting of the person whose signature it bears").  That is, the papyri held by Joseph Smith were the exact same papyri upon which Abraham physically had in his possession and wrote on, parts of which writings constitute what we now know as The Book of Abraham.  Is that a correct statement of your view?

For me, I am open to that, but also to . . . something different.  See, e.g., this article by Stephen Smoot:

This seems to be the most common narrative from members who are skeptical about the origins of the BOA.  More:

That's an interesting question.  Let's continue!

Give the entire thing a read.  It's worthwhile, I think.

Nope.  I haven't let it slide.  I've given it a fair amount of thought.

"Could be wrong about the BoA" is so broad as to be meaningless.  And I do not know what you mean by "wrong about the particulars of the BoM."  "Wrong" in what sense?  Did the Angel Moroni visit him, or not?  For the "Inspired Fiction" folks, the answer is necessarily "not" (since The Book of Mormon is, by definition, "fictional," there was no Lehi, hence no Nephi, hence no descendant named Mormon, hence no son of Mormon names Moroni, hence no being who was resurrected and appeared to Joseph Smith).  

And what about the plates?  Did they exist, or not?  

If they did not exist, how did Joseph persuaded the Witnesses and Emma to lie about them?  

Or did he deceive them somehow?  Did he fabricate plates and then tell everyone he knew for the rest of his life that he found them buried in a hill after being led to them by a resurrected prophet?  If so, did God tell him to engage in such lies and deceit?  Or was that Joseph's idea?

I believe so.  But then, I think the BOA is quite distinguishable from The Book of Mormon in this respect (see my previous post on this point).

I'm trying to bow out of this thread, so please consider the above questions as rhetorical, food-for-thought types of things.

Thanks,

-Smac

The more you talk the more confused I become. There are so many explanations that seem at cross purposes to each other, with all fingers pointing in different directions. I guess I'm going to have to solve this conumdrum on my own.

[cdowis]

7 hours ago, churchistrue said:

There's no temple recommend question on BOM historicity.

 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

"Well, I think JS was lying when he said he saw the Angel Moroni -- there was no angel.  I think there was no ancient prophets called Mormon, Moroni, Alma, etc. who wrote the text of the Book of Mormon but was only a 19th century invention, written by Joseph Smith himself, but quoting the Bible, and using books from his local library, and possibly with the help of Sidney Rigdon.

" There can be no doubt that JS and the three witnesses lied about the vision confirming the Book of Mormon, and the eight witnesses who felt and hefted the plates were swearing to a falsehood, and God will judge them for their lies (I guess).  These were all lies told by Joseph Smith and the early leaders of the church.  The Book of Mormon is definitely not a second witness for Jesus Christ but only a fiction.

"The entire foundation of the so-called restoration of the gospel is built on a foundation of deception and lies."

"But yes, the Gospel is true, the Book of Mormon is inspirational and has helped many people.  I am worthy to receive a temple recommend."

Edited August 19, 2016 by cdowis

[Johnnie Cake]

11 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Go to Jeff Lindsay's page and you see this at the top of the page for Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.

But don't we have to go away from the Hebraisms are found in the Book of Mormon and they couldn't have gotten there unless it was an authentic translation due to Skousen and Carmack's work? 

Not to mention:

From those dudes who compared the book of the Mormon with the Late War.

https://wordtreefoundation.github.io/thelatewar/

There's a multi-line chiasmus found in The Late War.  But, I thought such a long structured chiasmus was strong evidence in favor of the notion that the Book of Mormon was of ancient origin. 

From Lindsay's website http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml#alma36

If what were the plates was translated pre-Joseph Smith into an English form that is most common with English of centuries earlier than Joseph, Joseph just dictated what was given him based on that previous translation, then what do hebraisms have to do with the BoM?  Add to that mix the notion that a large portion of the Book was written, and edited, by a guy 1,000 years removed from Hebrew culture, it makes any existence of hebraisms seem pointless. 

Is the only thing going for the Book of MOrmon Nahom?  Because let's face it, that's not winning any converts.  See Hamblin's discussion with that professor from somewhere in Texas, whome I can't remember now from a year or two ago.  It seems like Nahom or some verison of it could have been found on a map in Joseph Smith's time.  And even if not, one tiny allusion to a place makes the whole state of the Book's history seem bleak. 

I'm curious if we're ever going to get away from having to conclude the Book is not of ancient origins.  It is far more modern and is fiction when it comes to history.  What if in all this effort and analysis that is what we have to end up concluding? 

This ones easy...The late war...was really a translation of an ancient Hebrew documents ... so we would expect to find chiasmus ...there problem solved

Edited August 19, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

12 hours ago, stemelbow said:

There's a multi-line chiasmus found in The Late War.  But, I thought such a long structured chiasmus was strong evidence in favor of the notion that the Book of Mormon was of ancient origin. 

Not impressed with the alleged chiasmus.  Can you guess why?  I will give two examples.  The last "Now it came to pass" is at the beginning of a new section, not the end of one.

And the central phrases that are supposed to indicate the main thrust of the chiasmus are artificially broken up so as to match what came before:

Quote

 

and his son reigned in his stead. 15  For the lords of the kingdom of Britain loved to dwell

under the shadow of George the King, and

under the shadow of George

his son.

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=77dXAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq="under+the+shadow+of+George"+Late+war&source=bl&ots=efIL9Fc8Jf&sig=KQ69aetoye7PCiKIMjqHTU349Pc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjyr9-nu8zOAhVJ9WMKHYzwCCQQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q="under the shadow of George" Late war&f=false

NOW it came to pass,

in the one thousand eight hundred and twelfth year of the christian era, and in the thirty and sixth year after the people of the provinces of Columbia had declared themselves independent of all the kingdoms of the earth; 2 That in the sixth month of the same year, on the first day of the month, the chief Governor, [whom the people had chosen to rule] over the land of Columbia 

3 Even James, whose sur-name was Madison, delivered a written paper to the Great Sanhedrim of the people,

who were assembled together.4 And the name of the city where the people were gathered together was called after the name of the chief captain of the land of Columbia,

whose fame extendeth to the uttermost parts of the earth ; albeit, he had slept with his fathers. 5 Nevertheless,

the people loved him, forasmuch as he wrought their deliverance from the yoke of tyranny in times past ; so they called the city Washington. 6 Now, when the written paper was received, the doors of the chambers of the Great

Sanhedrim were closed, and a seal was put upon every man's mouth. 7 And the counsellors of the nation, and the wise men

thereof, ordered the written paper which James had

delivered unto them

to be read aloud;

and the interpretation thereof was in this wise :8 Lo ! the lords and the princes of the kingdom of Britain, in

the fulness of their pride and power, have trampled upon the altar of Liberty, and violated the sanctuary thereof :9 Inasmuch as they hearkened not unto the voice of moderation, when the cry of the 'people of Columbia

was, Peace ! peace !10 Inasmuch as they permitted not the tall ships of Columbia to sail in peace on the waters of the mighty deep ; saving in their hearts,

These spoils shall be given unto the king.11 Inasmuch as they robbed the ships of Columbia of the strong men that wrought therein, and used them for their own use, even as a man useth his ox or his ***.12 Inasmuch as they kept the men stolen from the ships cf Columbia in bondage many years, and caused them to fight the battles of the king, even against their own brethren! neither gave they unto them silver or gold,

but many strips.3 Now the men of Columbia were not like unto the slaves of

Britain; neither were their backs hardened unto the whip, as were the servants of the king;

therefore they murmured, and their murmurings have been heard.14 Moreover, the Council of Britain

sent forth a Decree to all the

nations of the earth, sealed with the signet of the Prince Regent, who governed the nation in the name of the king his father ; for lo ! the king

was possessed of an evil spirit, and his son

reigned in his stead.15  For the lords of the kingdom of Britain loved to dwell under the shadow of George the King, and

under the shadow of George

his son.

16 Now this Decree of the Council of Britain was a grievous thing, inasmuch as it permitted not those who dealt in merchandize to go whithersoever they chose, and to trade freely with all parts of the earth.17 And it fell hard upon the people of Columbia; for the king

said unto them, Ye shall come unto me and pay tribute, then may ye depart to another country. 18 Now these things pleased the pirates and the cruisers and all the

sea-robbers of Britain

mightily, inasmuch as they could with impunity the commerce of Columbia, under the cloak of British honor.19 Furthermore, have not the servants of the king

leagued with the savages of

the wilderness, and given unto them silver and gold,

and placed the destroying engines in their hands?

20 Thereby stirring up the spirit of Satan within them, that they might spill the blood of the people of Columbia;

even the blood of our old men, our wives, and our little ones !21 Thus, had Britain, in her heart, commenced War against the people of Columbia, whilst they cried aloud

for peace : and when she smote them on the one cheek they turned unto her [not unto us] 

the other also.  22 Now, therefore, shall we, the independent people of Columbia, sit down silently, as slaves, and bow the neck to Britain ?23 Or, shall we nobly, and like our forefathers, assert our fights, and defend that which the Lord hath given unto us, Liberty and Independence?  CHAP. II. Report of the Committee— Declaration of War. NOW, when there was an end made of reading the paper which James had

written, the Sanhedrim com- muned one with another touching the matter :2 And they chose certain wise men from among them to deliberate thereon.3 And they commanded them to go forth from their presence, for that purpose, and return again on the third day of the same month.4 Now, when the third day arrived, at the eleventh hour of the day, they came forth and presented themselves before the Great Sanhedrim of the people.5 And the chief of the wise men,

whom they had chosen, opened his mouth and spake unto them after this manner :6 Behold ! day and night have we meditated upon the words which James hath delivered, and we are weary withal, for in our hearts we desired peace.  7 But the wickedness of the kingdom of Great

 Britain, and the cruelty of the princes thereof, towards the peaceable inhabitants of the land of Columbia, may be likened unto the fierce lion, when he putteth his paw upon the innocent lamb to devour him.  8 Nevertheless,

the lamb shall not be slain ; for the Lord shall be his deliverer.  9 And if, peradventure, the people of Columbia

go not out to battle against the king, then will the manifold wrongs committed against them be increased tenfold, and they shall be as a mock and a bye-word among all nations.  10 Moreover, the righteousness of your cause shall lead you to glory, and the pillars of your liberty shall not be shaken.  11 Therefore, say we unto you, Gird on your swords and go forth to battle against the king ; even against the strong powers of Britain ; and the Lord God of Hosts be with you.  12 Now when the great Sanhedrim of the people

heard those things which the wise men had uttered, they pondered them in their minds many days, and weighed them well;   13 Even until the seventeenth day of the month [pondered they in secret concerning the matter.   14 And it was so, that on the next day they sent forth a Decree, making WAR upon the kingdom of Great Britain, and upon the servants, and upon the slaves thereof.   15 And the Decree was signed with the hand writing of James, ]the chief Governor of the land of Columbia.

  16 After these things, the doors of the chambers of the Sanhedrim were opened.  CHAP. III. Reception of the Declaration of War in Great Britain — her friends in America — Caleb Stronig — Hartford Convention. AND it came to pass

, that when the princes and the lords and the counsellors of Britain saw the Decree, their wrath was kindled, and their hearts were ready to burst with indignation.

--------

Ben McGuire already covered some of this:

 

Edited August 19, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

Compare the above to the one given by Welch, formatting gets screwed up so you need to look at the link:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml#alma36

[Glenn101]

14 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Go to Jeff Lindsay's page and you see this at the top of the page for Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.

But don't we have to go away from the Hebraisms are found in the Book of Mormon and they couldn't have gotten there unless it was an authentic translation due to Skousen and Carmack's work? 

Not to mention:

From those dudes who compared the book of the Mormon with the Late War.

https://wordtreefoundation.github.io/thelatewar/

There's a multi-line chiasmus found in The Late War.  But, I thought such a long structured chiasmus was strong evidence in favor of the notion that the Book of Mormon was of ancient origin. 

From Lindsay's website http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml#alma36

If what were the plates was translated pre-Joseph Smith into an English form that is most common with English of centuries earlier than Joseph, Joseph just dictated what was given him based on that previous translation, then what do hebraisms have to do with the BoM?  Add to that mix the notion that a large portion of the Book was written, and edited, by a guy 1,000 years removed from Hebrew culture, it makes any existence of hebraisms seem pointless. 

Is the only thing going for the Book of MOrmon Nahom?  Because let's face it, that's not winning any converts.  See Hamblin's discussion with that professor from somewhere in Texas, whome I can't remember now from a year or two ago.  It seems like Nahom or some verison of it could have been found on a map in Joseph Smith's time.  And even if not, one tiny allusion to a place makes the whole state of the Book's history seem bleak. 

I'm curious if we're ever going to get away from having to conclude the Book is not of ancient origins.  It is far more modern and is fiction when it comes to history.  What if in all this effort and analysis that is what we have to end up concluding? 

stemelbow,

    Did you look at the number of ... ellipses used to make that chiasmus??? The "Late War" is available on line at https://ia802609.us.archive.org/22/items/latewarbetween_00hunt/latewarbetween_00hunt.pdf. Did you actually read the text from which it was derived?

I surely hope that the Nahom story, the Hebraisms (or Egyptian constructs according to some), the Early Modern English, or any of the other peculiarities of the Book of Mormon do not win any converts.

But you assertion that the Book of Mormon is "far more modern" flies in the face of all of the scholarship that has been done. But to each their own.

Edited to add: I posted this before I read Calm's analysis. Thanks Calm.

Glenn

Edited August 19, 2016 by Glenn101

[Calm]

There is just no purpose to that construction, it certainly does not function in the sense that chiastic (sp?) forms are supposed to.

Not only that, but the verse structure was a result of the author, unlike the BoM, so the odd division of the second it came to pass cannot be claimed as closure.  It is simply him repeating a chapter intro.

[Calm]

It would be interesting to see how Grunder 'reconstructed' this alleged chiasmus, how many misses he came up with before he got his hits.  Since it begins and ends with "it came to pass", it would not surprise me if he started a search on those phrases and then worked to find words that were repeated between them and then eliminated any that didn't work in a mirrored pattern in the proper order.  

That would account for the use of such a trivial phrase as "all the" and using "Great" off of two different phrases, "Great Britain" and "Great Sanhedrim", while ignoring 5 other uses of it.  Same thing with "of Columbia" which is used not two times, but 15 in the total text.  "Great Sanhedrim" is used three times, "wise men" 4 times, "unto them 5.  What is the significance of "Britain, in"?  "The people of Columbia" gets 4 hits.  "Hearts" is used three times, but because a second one doesn't fall in the right order, he has to substitute "hands".  Same with "slaves, again appears 3 times, but he substitutes "savages" to make it work.  "Of Britain" has 7 hits, "all the" three.  

Then there are the two dates followed by "the Chief Governor" followed by "over/of the Land of Columbia" that he has to ignore (using ellipses) 7 words falling between Governor and over in the first reference and almost 50 words along with a sentence change and a brand new verse in the second, though in a different location in the series, between the date and "the Chief Governor".  But he has to use ellipses for this because they aren't in the right order for his chiasmus, so he has to make them all one phrase that is mirrored rather than two or three.

Using this method, he probably could have made a massively huge claim for a chiasmus by taking the first and last use of "it came to pass" in the text and then searching on every two phrases (many of which would tend to be larger groups such as "the people of Columbia"), come up with a mirrored effect of hundreds of combinations, while ignoring all the other uses of the same phrases throughout the rest of the text.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

It has taken me about fifteen minutes to take the first and last "Now it came to pass" and start building my own so far...of course while the first section is all on the first page, the last involves ten pages:

Now it came to pass...in the sixth month of the same year,...land of Columbia...Great Sanhedrim of the people...

name of the...of the earth...Nevertheless...Nevertheless... of the earth...name of the...Great Sanhedrim of the people...l and of Columbia,...on the...sixth ...month, in the same year...Now it came to pass...

Given I had about 280 more pages to play with, I suspect it would have been amazing.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Go to Jeff Lindsay's page and you see this at the top of the page for Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.

But don't we have to go away from the Hebraisms are found in the Book of Mormon and they couldn't have gotten there unless it was an authentic translation due to Skousen and Carmack's work? 

Chiasmus is not the be all and end all for the Book of Mormon, and I am amazed that anyone would think that.  it is merely one among many rhetorical modes of organizing parallel texts.  It does help in eliciting meaning from some texts, but is not strictly a Hebraism, because such rhetorical form was used widely throughout the ancient world.  Moreover, although we sometimes find Hebraisms in non-Hebrew texts (such as the Greek New Testament), the Book of Mormon was engraved in Egyptian, not Hebrew.  So, we should presumably be looking for Egyptianisms, which can be very diagnostic of the true origin of the book.  Not sure what Skousen & Carmack have to do with that.

Quote

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

From those dudes who compared the book of the Mormon with the Late War.

https://wordtreefoundation.github.io/thelatewar/

There's a multi-line chiasmus found in The Late War.  But, I thought such a long structured chiasmus was strong evidence in favor of the notion that the Book of Mormon was of ancient origin. 

Would be nice if someone could supply the page numbers (and edition) in Late War from which that large chiasm was taken.  I would like to evaluate it myself.

Aside from that, the source you give here bollixed and falsified their "It came to pass" analysis, because they didn't bother to read mine (or ignored it), and made other serious errors, as noted in http://www.exploringsainthood.org/the-late-war-the-book-of-mormon-and-rare-n-grams/ , and in Interpreter (cited there).

Quote

From Lindsay's website http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml#alma36

If what were the plates was translated pre-Joseph Smith into an English form that is most common with English of centuries earlier than Joseph, Joseph just dictated what was given him based on that previous translation, then what do hebraisms have to do with the BoM?  Add to that mix the notion that a large portion of the Book was written, and edited, by a guy 1,000 years removed from Hebrew culture, it makes any existence of hebraisms seem pointless. 

As I indicated, we need to be speaking of Egyptianisms, not Hebraisms (although some of the latter can be found).  They would be of value in any translation from an Egyptian document, simply because some of the original mode of expression can come through, and could be diagnostic of the original language -- that is what I have found in my as yet unpublished "Egyptianisms in the Book of Mormon."

Quote

Is the only thing going for the Book of MOrmon Nahom?  Because let's face it, that's not winning any converts.  See Hamblin's discussion with that professor from somewhere in Texas, whome I can't remember now from a year or two ago.  It seems like Nahom or some verison of it could have been found on a map in Joseph Smith's time.  And even if not, one tiny allusion to a place makes the whole state of the Book's history seem bleak. 

I'm curious if we're ever going to get away from having to conclude the Book is not of ancient origins.  It is far more modern and is fiction when it comes to history.  What if in all this effort and analysis that is what we have to end up concluding? 

The archeological and linguistic bases for an ancient Book of Mormon are legion, and have been increasing in value and detail ever since 1830.  Most people don't know about them, and few really care.  Most people base their testimony upon the witness of the Holy Spirit, not on Nahom.  Thus it has always been and will continue to be.  However, if you are really interested in scientific evidence for the BofM, see a sampling in my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

Edited August 19, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

RS, Here is the full book text in a text file, but it is a different version than Grunder used, an earlier or later edition perhaps.

https://archive.org/stream/latewarbetweenun00inhunt/latewarbetweenun00inhunt_djvu.txt

I don't know if you want to do more of an analysis than I did, but if so, you might want to just copy paste my stuff as easiest.

You could also use the googlebook I linked to which is the version he used.  

BTW, it is the first chapter, second chapter and a few words of the third chapter.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Calm

[bcuzbcuz]

9 hours ago, cdowis said:

 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

"Well, I think JS was lying when he said he saw the Angel Moroni -- there was no angel.  I think there was no ancient prophets called Mormon, Moroni, Alma, etc. who wrote the text of the Book of Mormon but was only a 19th century invention, written by Joseph Smith himself, but quoting the Bible, and using books from his local library, and possibly with the help of Sidney Rigdon.

" There can be no doubt that JS and the three witnesses lied about the vision confirming the Book of Mormon, and the eight witnesses who felt and hefted the plates were swearing to a falsehood, and God will judge them for their lies (I guess).  These were all lies told by Joseph Smith and the early leaders of the church.  The Book of Mormon is definitely not a second witness for Jesus Christ but only a fiction.

"The entire foundation of the so-called restoration of the gospel is built on a foundation of deception and lies."

"But yes, the Gospel is true, the Book of Mormon is inspirational and has helped many people.  I am worthy to receive a temple recommend."

Why would anyone, holding such a stance be even slightly interested in entering the temple?

No, wait. Either a man or a woman who holds such opinions but has not discussed with their spouse.

Or a man or woman who holds such an opinion but whose spouse, still being a TBM, greatly desires another visit to the temple. (And that spouse could probably hold the opinion that such a temple visit could re-spark the unbeliever into belief again)

Or a man or woman who holds such a stance and desperately want to attend the temple wedding of one of their children.

Now that I think about it, lying isn't so bad.

[churchistrue]

10 hours ago, cdowis said:

 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

"Well, I think JS was lying when he said he saw the Angel Moroni -- there was no angel.  I think there was no ancient prophets called Mormon, Moroni, Alma, etc. who wrote the text of the Book of Mormon but was only a 19th century invention, written by Joseph Smith himself, but quoting the Bible, and using books from his local library, and possibly with the help of Sidney Rigdon.

" There can be no doubt that JS and the three witnesses lied about the vision confirming the Book of Mormon, and the eight witnesses who felt and hefted the plates were swearing to a falsehood, and God will judge them for their lies (I guess).  These were all lies told by Joseph Smith and the early leaders of the church.  The Book of Mormon is definitely not a second witness for Jesus Christ but only a fiction.

"The entire foundation of the so-called restoration of the gospel is built on a foundation of deception and lies."

"But yes, the Gospel is true, the Book of Mormon is inspirational and has helped many people.  I am worthy to receive a temple recommend."

I prefer "yes".

[bcuzbcuz]

14 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I prefer "yes".

Is that a "yes" as in "Don't ask, don't tell"?

[Gray]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

My "spiritual framework" is based on faith in God and a desire to return obey Him and become more like him.

In the LDS paradigm, the "pinnacle" of our "spiritual quest" is, or should be, encapsulated in Matthew 22:

To love God is to keep His commandments (John 14:15).

Those commandments include "going through the correct ecclesiastical channels for your ordinances and doctrine."

That's one interpretation, certainly. But I'm really talking about the focus of your faith. Certainly conservative members of the church believe in the two great commandments, but the focus is often elsewhere.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Those "ecclesiastical channels" are the servants of God who bear the Priesthood of God, and who are authorized to administer the saving ordinances which God commands us to receive.

This seems to to be the focus of conservatism.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I guess we'll have to disagree about that.  By your reckoning, belief in Jesus Christ is irrelevant.  A person who rejects Him as the Son of God and Savior of the world, but who nevertheless adheres to a generally good "framework" that involves only selective excerpts of the Restored Gospel, will surely be rewarded for the caliber of that life.  I am grateful for that.  But if a person seeks to have an eternal family, if a person seeks exaltation, then the historicity of Jesus Christ matters.

I think it's more important to follow the general principles taught by Jesus than to be committed to any particular theological attributes of Jesus.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not principally, no.  I have faith in Jesus Christ as an actual being, as the actual Son of God and actual Savior of the world.  A belief in a fictional/imaginary Jesus makes about as much sense as telling a drowning man to rely on a fictional/imaginary life preserver.

Jesus is of course a historical person. But the great thing about his teachings is they would be value even if Jesus had never existed.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

My belief in Jesus Christ is based on the scriptures and on the Spirit.  "Secular research and historical methodology" are, at best, supplemental and ancillary resources.

Based on your interpretation of the scriptures, of course.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "confirm."  We're not speaking of mathematical proofs.  We're speaking of historical events about which we are asked to accept on faith.  "For we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7).

When we begin to talk about historicity, immediately we enter the turf of historians. All of a suddenly theology becomes dependent upon an academic discipline, unless by "historical" you mean something quite different than a historian means by that word (certainly a possibility).

 

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Speaking of false dichotomies...

The Church claims to be "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth."  If it is not, then I suppose it might be something good, but hardly unique.

I think Mormonism is pretty unique whether or not it has any unique authorization from God.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I do not understand this.  Calling it "a different genre" does not explain anything.  Where did the text come from?

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I guess we'll have to disagree about that.  In the LDS paradigm, the witnesses constitute evidence that can and should be evaluated.  People are certainly at liberty to reach a conclusion about the truth claims of the LDS Church without competently and fairly examining the testimonial evidence of those 11 men.  But that admittedly ignorant position, that refusal to evaluate evidence, significantly cheapens the value of merits of any subsequent conclusions about The Book of Mormon.

The witnesses certainly bolster the faith of those who already believe in literal gold plates. But they don't really constitute evidence that is meaningful to anyone who doesn't already believe in that.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet we are not speaking of "individual human testimony."  The Three Witnesses all testified about the same event.  So did the Eight Witnesses.

The witness testimony was composed by a single person, and apparently unsigned. All the witnesses were apparently willing participants in that. There is certainly some inconsistency in how they later described those events themselves. But even if they were all united, it wouldn't be compelling evidence. There are plenty of similar examples of witnesses of other unverifiable and anomalous/incredible events.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

And you are comparing eleven men, eleven known quantities, with vague references to "thousands" of disparate persons.

And you are refusing to evaluate the testimonial evidence of these men at all.  Not because their testimony is not relevant, but because their testimony contravenes your a priori assumptions about The Book of Mormon.  Well, that's certainly your prerogative, but it's not very persuasive.  A position based on intentional, calculated ignorance never will be.

Human testimony is simply not enough. How persuasive do you find human testimony about alien abductions or sightings of the virgin Mary? In many cases this testimony is backed up with multiple witnesses, but no physical evidence. This stuff doesn't mean anything to people who don't already believe it.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't get it.  Earlier you said that your "{doesn't} require any explanation," but here you are providing an "explanation."  An explanation that, by your apparent admission, is based A) on a priori assumptions about The Book of Mormon, and B) on ignorance of the merits of the testimony of percipient witnesses.

Thanks,

-Smac

You seem to want an explanation, so I tried to give you one. But I'm just saying, eyewitnesses testimony to fantastic and otherwise unverifiable events isn't that meaningful to anyone who doesn't already believe it. We're not talking about concrete evidence, we're talking about anecdotes.

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Is that a "yes" as in "Don't ask, don't tell"?

Don't ask don't tell would be to not ask the question and not answer.  The question is "do you have a testimony of the restored gospel?"  The answer is yes.

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's one interpretation, certainly. But I'm really talking about the focus of your faith. Certainly conservative members of the church believe in the two great commandments, but the focus is often elsewhere.

 

This seems to to be the focus of conservatism.

 

I think it's more important to follow the general principles taught by Jesus than to be committed to any particular theological attributes of Jesus.

 

Jesus is of course a historical person. But the great thing about his teachings is they would be value even if Jesus had never existed.

 

Based on your interpretation of the scriptures, of course.

 

When we begin to talk about historicity, immediately we enter the turf of historians. All of a suddenly theology becomes dependent upon an academic discipline, unless by "historical" you mean something quite different than a historian means by that word (certainly a possibility).

 

 

I think Mormonism is pretty unique whether or not it has any unique authorization from God.

 

 

The witnesses certainly bolster the faith of those who already believe in literal gold plates. But they don't really constitute evidence that is meaningful to anyone who doesn't already believe in that.

 

The witness testimony was composed by a single person, and apparently unsigned. All the witnesses were apparently willing participants in that. There is certainly some inconsistency in how they later described those events themselves. But even if they were all united, it wouldn't be compelling evidence. There are plenty of similar examples of witnesses of other unverifiable and anomalous/incredible events.

 

Human testimony is simply not enough. How persuasive do you find human testimony about alien abductions or sightings of the virgin Mary? In many cases this testimony is backed up with multiple witnesses, but no physical evidence. This stuff doesn't mean anything to people who don't already believe it.

 

You seem to want an explanation, so I tried to give you one. But I'm just saying, eyewitnesses testimony to fantastic and otherwise unverifiable events isn't that meaningful to anyone who doesn't already believe it. We're not talking about concrete evidence, we're talking about anecdotes.

I'll leave you with the last word, then.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'll leave you with the last word, then.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for the interesting conversation.

[stemelbow]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Not impressed with the alleged chiasmus.  Can you guess why?  I will give two examples.  The last "Now it came to pass" is at the beginning of a new section, not the end of one.

And the central phrases that are supposed to indicate the main thrust of the chiasmus are artificially broken up so as to match what came before:

https://books.google.com/books?id=77dXAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq="under+the+shadow+of+George"+Late+war&source=bl&ots=efIL9Fc8Jf&sig=KQ69aetoye7PCiKIMjqHTU349Pc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjyr9-nu8zOAhVJ9WMKHYzwCCQQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q="under the shadow of George" Late war&f=false

NOW it came to pass,

in the one thousand eight hundred and twelfth year of the christian era, and in the thirty and sixth year after the people of the provinces of Columbia had declared themselves independent of all the kingdoms of the earth; 2 That in the sixth month of the same year, on the first day of the month, the chief Governor, [whom the people had chosen to rule] over the land of Columbia 

3 Even James, whose sur-name was Madison, delivered a written paper to the Great Sanhedrim of the people,

who were assembled together.4 And the name of the city where the people were gathered together was called after the name of the chief captain of the land of Columbia,

whose fame extendeth to the uttermost parts of the earth ; albeit, he had slept with his fathers. 5 Nevertheless,

the people loved him, forasmuch as he wrought their deliverance from the yoke of tyranny in times past ; so they called the city Washington. 6 Now, when the written paper was received, the doors of the chambers of the Great

Sanhedrim were closed, and a seal was put upon every man's mouth. 7 And the counsellors of the nation, and the wise men

thereof, ordered the written paper which James had

delivered unto them

to be read aloud;

and the interpretation thereof was in this wise :8 Lo ! the lords and the princes of the kingdom of Britain, in

the fulness of their pride and power, have trampled upon the altar of Liberty, and violated the sanctuary thereof :9 Inasmuch as they hearkened not unto the voice of moderation, when the cry of the 'people of Columbia

was, Peace ! peace !10 Inasmuch as they permitted not the tall ships of Columbia to sail in peace on the waters of the mighty deep ; saving in their hearts,

These spoils shall be given unto the king.11 Inasmuch as they robbed the ships of Columbia of the strong men that wrought therein, and used them for their own use, even as a man useth his ox or his ***.12 Inasmuch as they kept the men stolen from the ships cf Columbia in bondage many years, and caused them to fight the battles of the king, even against their own brethren! neither gave they unto them silver or gold,

but many strips.3 Now the men of Columbia were not like unto the slaves of

Britain; neither were their backs hardened unto the whip, as were the servants of the king;

therefore they murmured, and their murmurings have been heard.14 Moreover, the Council of Britain

sent forth a Decree to all the

nations of the earth, sealed with the signet of the Prince Regent, who governed the nation in the name of the king his father ; for lo ! the king

was possessed of an evil spirit, and his son

reigned in his stead.15  For the lords of the kingdom of Britain loved to dwell under the shadow of George the King, and

under the shadow of George

his son.

16 Now this Decree of the Council of Britain was a grievous thing, inasmuch as it permitted not those who dealt in merchandize to go whithersoever they chose, and to trade freely with all parts of the earth.17 And it fell hard upon the people of Columbia; for the king

said unto them, Ye shall come unto me and pay tribute, then may ye depart to another country. 18 Now these things pleased the pirates and the cruisers and all the

sea-robbers of Britain

mightily, inasmuch as they could with impunity the commerce of Columbia, under the cloak of British honor.19 Furthermore, have not the servants of the king

leagued with the savages of

the wilderness, and given unto them silver and gold,

and placed the destroying engines in their hands?

20 Thereby stirring up the spirit of Satan within them, that they might spill the blood of the people of Columbia;

even the blood of our old men, our wives, and our little ones !21 Thus, had Britain, in her heart, commenced War against the people of Columbia, whilst they cried aloud

for peace : and when she smote them on the one cheek they turned unto her [not unto us] 

the other also.  22 Now, therefore, shall we, the independent people of Columbia, sit down silently, as slaves, and bow the neck to Britain ?23 Or, shall we nobly, and like our forefathers, assert our fights, and defend that which the Lord hath given unto us, Liberty and Independence?  CHAP. II. Report of the Committee— Declaration of War. NOW, when there was an end made of reading the paper which James had

written, the Sanhedrim com- muned one with another touching the matter :2 And they chose certain wise men from among them to deliberate thereon.3 And they commanded them to go forth from their presence, for that purpose, and return again on the third day of the same month.4 Now, when the third day arrived, at the eleventh hour of the day, they came forth and presented themselves before the Great Sanhedrim of the people.5 And the chief of the wise men,

whom they had chosen, opened his mouth and spake unto them after this manner :6 Behold ! day and night have we meditated upon the words which James hath delivered, and we are weary withal, for in our hearts we desired peace.  7 But the wickedness of the kingdom of Great

 Britain, and the cruelty of the princes thereof, towards the peaceable inhabitants of the land of Columbia, may be likened unto the fierce lion, when he putteth his paw upon the innocent lamb to devour him.  8 Nevertheless,

the lamb shall not be slain ; for the Lord shall be his deliverer.  9 And if, peradventure, the people of Columbia

go not out to battle against the king, then will the manifold wrongs committed against them be increased tenfold, and they shall be as a mock and a bye-word among all nations.  10 Moreover, the righteousness of your cause shall lead you to glory, and the pillars of your liberty shall not be shaken.  11 Therefore, say we unto you, Gird on your swords and go forth to battle against the king ; even against the strong powers of Britain ; and the Lord God of Hosts be with you.  12 Now when the great Sanhedrim of the people

heard those things which the wise men had uttered, they pondered them in their minds many days, and weighed them well;   13 Even until the seventeenth day of the month [pondered they in secret concerning the matter.   14 And it was so, that on the next day they sent forth a Decree, making WAR upon the kingdom of Great Britain, and upon the servants, and upon the slaves thereof.   15 And the Decree was signed with the hand writing of James, ]the chief Governor of the land of Columbia.

  16 After these things, the doors of the chambers of the Sanhedrim were opened.  CHAP. III. Reception of the Declaration of War in Great Britain — her friends in America — Caleb Stronig — Hartford Convention. AND it came to pass

, that when the princes and the lords and the counsellors of Britain saw the Decree, their wrath was kindled, and their hearts were ready to burst with indignation.

--------

Ben McGuire already covered some of this:

 

I like Ben's Interpreter article in 2013 addressing the Late War stuff.  I"ll have to check out this youtube. 

When you say you aren't impressed with the Late War chiasmus, I wonder what is significant about chiasmus at all, again.  I read the articles that Robert linked from Welch and I'm still left wondering if they carry any significance.  But they add to the complexity of the text, I guess.  That's something.

I bring this up because years ago I remember reading something from someone that described all these fascinating hebraisms (now I realize chiasmus isn't really a Hebraism even if they seem to come up whenever Hebraisms are discussed).  I had to ask at that time, if the book was partially written and edited by a person who was 1,000 years removed from Hebrew culture, if the translation was more of a transcription, dictated by the power of God into English, what does the presence of Hebraisms mean for the book?  It seems likely we wouldn't see them at all, after such a process. 

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

Yes.  Translated by Joseph Smith through divine means, the particulars of which are unknown and unexplained.

Well, that's an interesting point.  What is meant by "written by his own hand upon papyrus?"  I take it that you interpret that as something like "the papyri which came to be held by Joseph Smith were essentially something like a holograph ("a document written entirely in the handwriting of the person whose signature it bears").  That is, the papyri held by Joseph Smith were the exact same papyri upon which Abraham physically had in his possession and wrote on, parts of which writings constitute what we now know as The Book of Abraham.  Is that a correct statement of your view?

For me, I am open to that, but also to . . . something different.  See, e.g., this article by Stephen Smoot:

This seems to be the most common narrative from members who are skeptical about the origins of the BOA.  More:

That's an interesting question.  Let's continue!

Give the entire thing a read.  It's worthwhile, I think.

Nope.  I haven't let it slide.  I've given it a fair amount of thought.

"Could be wrong about the BoA" is so broad as to be meaningless.  And I do not know what you mean by "wrong about the particulars of the BoM."  "Wrong" in what sense?  Did the Angel Moroni visit him, or not?  For the "Inspired Fiction" folks, the answer is necessarily "not" (since The Book of Mormon is, by definition, "fictional," there was no Lehi, hence no Nephi, hence no descendant named Mormon, hence no son of Mormon names Moroni, hence no being who was resurrected and appeared to Joseph Smith).  

And what about the plates?  Did they exist, or not?  

If they did not exist, how did Joseph persuaded the Witnesses and Emma to lie about them?  

Or did he deceive them somehow?  Did he fabricate plates and then tell everyone he knew for the rest of his life that he found them buried in a hill after being led to them by a resurrected prophet?  If so, did God tell him to engage in such lies and deceit?  Or was that Joseph's idea?

I believe so.  But then, I think the BOA is quite distinguishable from The Book of Mormon in this respect (see my previous post on this point).

I'm trying to bow out of this thread, so please consider the above questions as rhetorical, food-for-thought types of things.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm surprised that you don't seem to recognize the comparisons between the translation of the BoA and the BoM. In defense of the BoA NOT being exactly what Joseph claimed it to be, or brought forth in the way Joseph claimed it was, you make the same basic argument that I'm making with the BoM.

You continue to present a false dichotomy that Joseph either is perfectly accurate in his description of his translations/process or he is a complete fraud. But for the BoA you're willing to accept that he was wrong about it being written by the hand of Abraham upon papyrus. He seems to have literally believed the scrolls were Abraham's personal writings. He was wrong. He can be wrong without being a complete fraud. I view it as very possible that he didn't understand the translation process himself. If the scrolls were a catalyst (leading his mind to be inspired by God) then why couldn't the stone also be the catalyst for the BoM translation coming from God?

By sticking with this false dichotomy you are essentially pushing people away who are trying to maintain some hope in the restoration and Joseph as a prophet. What's the point in doing that?

You state that you believe the BoA was translated by divine means but you stop short of accepting that it was done in the way Joseph claimed. Likewise, why couldn't a person believe that the BoM was translated by divine means- but stop short of accepting it was done in the way Joseph claimed?

You seem to be really hung up on the plates, expecting that if they didn't exist Joseph is a complete fraud. But is it possible Joseph was inspired to produce the BoM but was also just a man who felt insecure and concerned that no one would believe him. What if he created a story about the provenance of the BoM coming from ancient plates because he thought a little deception would be warranted for the greater good?

If Joseph lied/misled people about that, does that automatically disqualify him from being used by God in other ways? If he lied about the plates, would that be the only time in Joseph's life he was dishonest for what he may have considered the greater good? (Think polygamy)

On the other hand, I think it is possible Joseph was inspired by God but was also one of the "weak things" of the world and lied about some of the particulars. It's the pious fraud theory while also recognizing inspiration from God.

Edited August 19, 2016 by HappyJackWagon