Could the Book of Mormon be a 17th Century pious fraud?

[JarMan]

A lot of effort has gone into showing nineteenth century elements in the Book of Mormon, but in light of recent work by Skousen and Carmack I wonder if we should be looking for 16th or 17 century elements instead. Personally, I favor Joseph Smith's own explanation for how the Book of Mormon came to be, though I am interested in the expansion theory as a way to explain some apparent anachronisms. I can't buy into a pious fraud model because I don't think it's possible JS could have possibly produced the book. However, a 16th or 17th century pious fraud model is more interesting to me because it allows for a person (or persons) to have labored for years to produce the Book of Mormon and it accounts for the Early Modern English in the text. Admittedly it may present more problems than it solves, but I have been looking into several things in the Book of Mormon that seem to point to the late 16th or early 17th century. I have several examples but I will just give one for now to generate some discussion.

In Mosiah 17 Abinadi is burned to death for what essentially amounts to heresy. Later, in Alma 14 many heretics are burned to death by the people of Ammonihah. The practice of burning heretics at the stake was a common 16th century practice in Europe but had mostly died out by the beginning of the 17th century - over 200 years before JS dictated the Book of Mormon. Burning heretics at the stake seems to have originated in Europe almost 1,000 years after 600 BC so it's doubtful this practice was something the Lehites or Mulekites brought with them from the old world. But it's not just the practice itsself in the Book of Mormon that hints at 16th Century Europe. There are also several similarities to how it was practiced.

For example, Abinadi was given a chance to recant in order to save his life. In 16th Century Europe many of the people accused of heresy could also escape death by recanting. Many chose that option. (Some recanters were burned anyway, but were strangled first.)

Also, the Spanish Inquisition is known to have held mass burnings of heretics in the 15th and 16th centuries called auto-da-fe. These autos-da-fe are eerily similar to what we read in Alma 14, though I have not found any evidence that the Spanish included children in the mass burnings.

Mary I of England (Bloody Mary) is known to have executed close to 300 heretics over a five year period in the 1550's, mostly by burning. In one infamous episode she forced archbishop Thomas Cranmer to watch two other bishops' burnings. As a result, Cranmer repudiated his Protestant faith and rejoined Catholicism. (He ended up being executed anyway.) This episode is similar to Alma and Amulek's experience when they were forced to witness the burnings in Alma 14, apparently with the hope that this would force them to recant their faith.

The heretical scriptures of the people of Ammonihah were thrown into the fire and burned with them. Burning the writings of heretics was also common in 16th Century Europe (as it has been in many other eras). Recall that Martin Luther burned his Papal Bull of Excommunication and several other Catholic works in 1520. Predictably, many of Luther's works were burned in response. Later in the century Anabaptist and Calvinist writings were also burned. As part of the Inquisition many of the printers and book sellers were burned at the stake along with the books. In 1553, Servetus was burned at the stake in Geneva with a large bundle of manuscripts and books tied to to his waist.

The idea of burning heretics in the 16th Century was linked to the idea of burning in hell by people such as Thomas More and others. Thus Alma 14:14 seems appropriately ironic when Alma and Amulek are asked: "After what ye have seen, will ye preach again unto this people, that they shall be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone?"

Maybe I'm just cherry-picking here... or maybe these are mere coincidences... but it seems like the heretic-burning episodes I've referenced in the Book of Mormon make a lot of sense from a 16th Century European perspective.

[Duncan]

 Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were thrown into a furnace of some heated capacity , I don't know if people back in those days in that general area were burned at stakes though. Maybe it evolved over time to why heat up the furnace when one person is who you are burning so tie them to a tree or something, less work

Edited October 10, 2017 by Duncan

[ksfisher]

16 minutes ago, JarMan said:

A lot of effort has gone into showing nineteenth century elements in the Book of Mormon, but in light of recent work by Skousen and Carmack I wonder if we should be looking for 16th or 17 century elements instead. Personally, I favor Joseph Smith's own explanation for how the Book of Mormon came to be, though I am interested in the expansion theory as a way to explain some apparent anachronisms. I can't buy into a pious fraud model because I don't think it's possible JS could have possibly produced the book. However, a 16th or 17th century pious fraud model is more interesting to me because it allows for a person (or persons) to have labored for years to produce the Book of Mormon and it accounts for the Early Modern English in the text. Admittedly it may present more problems than it solves, but I have been looking into several things in the Book of Mormon that seem to point to the late 16th or early 17th century. I have several examples but I will just give one for now to generate some discussion.

In Mosiah 17 Abinadi is burned to death for what essentially amounts to heresy. Later, in Alma 14 many heretics are burned to death by the people of Ammonihah. The practice of burning heretics at the stake was a common 16th century practice in Europe but had mostly died out by the beginning of the 17th century - over 200 years before JS dictated the Book of Mormon. Burning heretics at the stake seems to have originated in Europe almost 1,000 years after 600 BC so it's doubtful this practice was something the Lehites or Mulekites brought with them from the old world. But it's not just the practice itsself in the Book of Mormon that hints at 16th Century Europe. There are also several similarities to how it was practiced.

For example, Abinadi was given a chance to recant in order to save his life. In 16th Century Europe many of the people accused of heresy could also escape death by recanting. Many chose that option. (Some recanters were burned anyway, but were strangled first.)

Also, the Spanish Inquisition is known to have held mass burnings of heretics in the 15th and 16th centuries called auto-da-fe. These autos-da-fe are eerily similar to what we read in Alma 14, though I have not found any evidence that the Spanish included children in the mass burnings.

Mary I of England (Bloody Mary) is known to have executed close to 300 heretics over a five year period in the 1550's, mostly by burning. In one infamous episode she forced archbishop Thomas Cranmer to watch two other bishops' burnings. As a result, Cranmer repudiated his Protestant faith and rejoined Catholicism. (He ended up being executed anyway.) This episode is similar to Alma and Amulek's experience when they were forced to witness the burnings in Alma 14, apparently with the hope that this would force them to recant their faith.

The heretical scriptures of the people of Ammonihah were thrown into the fire and burned with them. Burning the writings of heretics was also common in 16th Century Europe (as it has been in many other eras). Recall that Martin Luther burned his Papal Bull of Excommunication and several other Catholic works in 1520. Predictably, many of Luther's works were burned in response. Later in the century Anabaptist and Calvinist writings were also burned. As part of the Inquisition many of the printers and book sellers were burned at the stake along with the books. In 1553, Servetus was burned at the stake in Geneva with a large bundle of manuscripts and books tied to to his waist.

The idea of burning heretics in the 16th Century was linked to the idea of burning in hell by people such as Thomas More and others. Thus Alma 14:14 seems appropriately ironic when Alma and Amulek are asked: "After what ye have seen, will ye preach again unto this people, that they shall be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone?"

Maybe I'm just cherry-picking here... or maybe these are mere coincidences... but it seems like the heretic-burning episodes I've referenced in the Book of Mormon make a lot of sense from a 16th Century European perspective.

Old Babylonia

The 18th century BC law code promulgated by Babylonian king Hammurabi specifies several crimes in which death by burning was thought appropriate. Looters of houses on fire could be cast into the flames, and priestesses who abandoned cloisters and began frequenting inns and taverns could also be punished by being burnt alive. Furthermore, a man who began committing incest with his mother after the death of his father could be ordered by courts to be burned alive.^[2]

Ancient Egypt

In Ancient Egypt, several incidents of burning alive perceived rebels are attested. For example, Senusret I (r. 1971–1926 BC) is said to have rounded up the rebels in campaign, and burnt them as human torches. Under the civil war flaring under Takelot II more than a thousand years later, the Crown Prince Osorkon showed no mercy, and burned several rebels alive.^[3] On the statute books, at least, women committing adultery might be burned to death. Jon Manchip White, however, did not think capital judicial punishments were often carried out, pointing to the fact that the pharaoh had to personally ratify each verdict.^[4] Furthermore, the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (fl. 1st century BC) asserts that the Egyptians had a particularly terrible punishment for children who murdered their parents: With sharpened reeds, bits of flesh the size of a finger were cut from the criminal's body. Then he was placed on a bed of thorns and burnt alive.^[5]

Assyria

In the Middle Assyrian period, paragraph 40 in a preserved law text concerns the obligatory unveiled face for the professional prostitute, and the concomitant punishment if she violated that by veiling herself (the way wives were to dress in public):

A prostitute shall not be veiled. Whoever sees a veiled prostitute shall seize her ... and bring her to the palace entrance. ... they shall pour hot pitch over her head.^[6]

For the Neo-Assyrians, mass executions seem to have been not only designed to instill terror and to enforce obedience, but also as proof of their might. For example, Neo-Assyrian King Ashurnasirpal II (r. 883–859 BC) was evidently proud enough of his bloody work that he committed it to monument and eternal memory as follows:^[7]

I cut off their hands, I burned them with fire, a pile of the living men and of heads over against the city gate I set up, men I impaled on stakes, the city I destroyed and devastated, I turned it into mounds and ruin heaps, the young men and the maidens in the fire I burned.

Hebraic tradition

In Genesis 38, Judah orders Tamar—the widow of his son, living in her father's household—to be burned when she is believed to have become pregnant by an extramarital sexual relation. Tamar saves herself by proving that Judah is himself the father of her child. In the Book of Jubilees, the same story is basically told, with some intriguing differences, according to Caryn A. Reeder. In Genesis, Judah is exercising his patriarchal power at a distance, whereas he and the relatives seem more actively involved in Tamar's impending execution.^[8]

In Hebraic law, death by burning was prescribed for ten forms of sexual crimes: The imputed crime of Tamar, namely that a married daughter of a priest commits adultery, and nine versions of relationships considered as incestuous, such as having sex with one's own daughter, or granddaughter, but also, for example, to have sex with one's mother-in-law or with one's wife's daughter.^[9]

In the Mishnah, the following manner of burning the criminal is described:

The obligatory procedure for execution by burning: They immersed him in dung up to his knees, rolled a rough cloth into a soft one and wound it about his neck. One pulled it one way, one the other until he opened his mouth. Thereupon one ignites the (lead) wick and throws it in his mouth, and it descends to his bowels and sears his bowels.

That is, the person dies from being fed molten lead.^[10] The Mishnah is, however, a fairly late collections of laws, from about the 3rd century AD, and scholars believe it replaced the actual punishment of burning in the old biblical texts.^[11]

Ancient Rome

In the 6th century AD collection of the sayings and rulings of the pre-eminent jurists from earlier ages, the Digest, a number of crimes are regarded as punishable by death by burning. The 3rd century jurist Ulpian, for example, says that enemies of the state, and deserters to the enemy are to be burned alive. His rough contemporary, the juristical writer Callistratus mentions that arsonists are typically burnt, as well as slaves who have conspired against the well-being of their masters (this last also, on occasion, being meted out to free persons of "low rank").^[12] The punishment of burning alive arsonists (and traitors) seems to have been particularly ancient; it was included in the Twelve Tables, a mid-5th BC law code, that is, about 700 years prior to the times of Ulpian and Callistratus.^[13] According to ancient reports, Roman authorities executed many of the early Christian martyrs by burning. An example of this is the earliest chronicle of a martyrdom, that of Polycarp.^[14] Sometimes this was by means of the tunica molesta,^[15] a flammable tunic:^[16]

... the Christian, stripped naked, was forced to put on a garment called the tunica molesta, made of papyrus, smeared on both sides with wax, and was then fastened to a high pole, from the top of which they continued to pour down burning pitch and lard, a spike fastened under the chin preventing the excruciated victim from turning the head to either side, so as to escape the liquid fire, until the whole body, and every part of it, was literally clad and cased in flame.

In AD 326, Constantine the Great promulgated a law that increased the penalties for parentally non-sanctioned "abduction" of their girls, and concomitant sexual intercourse/rape. The man would be burnt alive without the possibility of appeal, and the girl would receive the same treatment if she had participated willingly. Nurses who had corrupted their female wards and led them to sexual encounters would have molten lead poured down their throats.^[17] In the same year, Constantine also passed a law that said if a woman married her own slave, both would be subjected to capital punishment, the slave by burning.^[18] In AD 390, Emperor Theodosius issued an edict against male prostitutes and brothels offering such services; those found guilty should be burned alive.^[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_burning

 

When it comes to people finding ways to be cruel to other people, not much is new.

[Glenn101]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

When it comes to people finding ways to be cruel to other people, not much is new.

Would rather up-vote this than "like" it, which I surely do not. 

Glenn

 

[The Nehor]

No.

[JarMan]

20 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Old Babylonia

The 18th century BC law code promulgated by Babylonian king Hammurabi specifies several crimes in which death by burning was thought appropriate. Looters of houses on fire could be cast into the flames, and priestesses who abandoned cloisters and began frequenting inns and taverns could also be punished by being burnt alive. Furthermore, a man who began committing incest with his mother after the death of his father could be ordered by courts to be burned alive.^[2]

Ancient Egypt

In Ancient Egypt, several incidents of burning alive perceived rebels are attested. For example, Senusret I (r. 1971–1926 BC) is said to have rounded up the rebels in campaign, and burnt them as human torches. Under the civil war flaring under Takelot II more than a thousand years later, the Crown Prince Osorkon showed no mercy, and burned several rebels alive.^[3] On the statute books, at least, women committing adultery might be burned to death. Jon Manchip White, however, did not think capital judicial punishments were often carried out, pointing to the fact that the pharaoh had to personally ratify each verdict.^[4] Furthermore, the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (fl. 1st century BC) asserts that the Egyptians had a particularly terrible punishment for children who murdered their parents: With sharpened reeds, bits of flesh the size of a finger were cut from the criminal's body. Then he was placed on a bed of thorns and burnt alive.^[5]

Assyria

In the Middle Assyrian period, paragraph 40 in a preserved law text concerns the obligatory unveiled face for the professional prostitute, and the concomitant punishment if she violated that by veiling herself (the way wives were to dress in public):

A prostitute shall not be veiled. Whoever sees a veiled prostitute shall seize her ... and bring her to the palace entrance. ... they shall pour hot pitch over her head.^[6]

For the Neo-Assyrians, mass executions seem to have been not only designed to instill terror and to enforce obedience, but also as proof of their might. For example, Neo-Assyrian King Ashurnasirpal II (r. 883–859 BC) was evidently proud enough of his bloody work that he committed it to monument and eternal memory as follows:^[7]

I cut off their hands, I burned them with fire, a pile of the living men and of heads over against the city gate I set up, men I impaled on stakes, the city I destroyed and devastated, I turned it into mounds and ruin heaps, the young men and the maidens in the fire I burned.

Hebraic tradition

In Genesis 38, Judah orders Tamar—the widow of his son, living in her father's household—to be burned when she is believed to have become pregnant by an extramarital sexual relation. Tamar saves herself by proving that Judah is himself the father of her child. In the Book of Jubilees, the same story is basically told, with some intriguing differences, according to Caryn A. Reeder. In Genesis, Judah is exercising his patriarchal power at a distance, whereas he and the relatives seem more actively involved in Tamar's impending execution.^[8]

In Hebraic law, death by burning was prescribed for ten forms of sexual crimes: The imputed crime of Tamar, namely that a married daughter of a priest commits adultery, and nine versions of relationships considered as incestuous, such as having sex with one's own daughter, or granddaughter, but also, for example, to have sex with one's mother-in-law or with one's wife's daughter.^[9]

In the Mishnah, the following manner of burning the criminal is described:

The obligatory procedure for execution by burning: They immersed him in dung up to his knees, rolled a rough cloth into a soft one and wound it about his neck. One pulled it one way, one the other until he opened his mouth. Thereupon one ignites the (lead) wick and throws it in his mouth, and it descends to his bowels and sears his bowels.

That is, the person dies from being fed molten lead.^[10] The Mishnah is, however, a fairly late collections of laws, from about the 3rd century AD, and scholars believe it replaced the actual punishment of burning in the old biblical texts.^[11]

Ancient Rome

In the 6th century AD collection of the sayings and rulings of the pre-eminent jurists from earlier ages, the Digest, a number of crimes are regarded as punishable by death by burning. The 3rd century jurist Ulpian, for example, says that enemies of the state, and deserters to the enemy are to be burned alive. His rough contemporary, the juristical writer Callistratus mentions that arsonists are typically burnt, as well as slaves who have conspired against the well-being of their masters (this last also, on occasion, being meted out to free persons of "low rank").^[12] The punishment of burning alive arsonists (and traitors) seems to have been particularly ancient; it was included in the Twelve Tables, a mid-5th BC law code, that is, about 700 years prior to the times of Ulpian and Callistratus.^[13] According to ancient reports, Roman authorities executed many of the early Christian martyrs by burning. An example of this is the earliest chronicle of a martyrdom, that of Polycarp.^[14] Sometimes this was by means of the tunica molesta,^[15] a flammable tunic:^[16]

... the Christian, stripped naked, was forced to put on a garment called the tunica molesta, made of papyrus, smeared on both sides with wax, and was then fastened to a high pole, from the top of which they continued to pour down burning pitch and lard, a spike fastened under the chin preventing the excruciated victim from turning the head to either side, so as to escape the liquid fire, until the whole body, and every part of it, was literally clad and cased in flame.

In AD 326, Constantine the Great promulgated a law that increased the penalties for parentally non-sanctioned "abduction" of their girls, and concomitant sexual intercourse/rape. The man would be burnt alive without the possibility of appeal, and the girl would receive the same treatment if she had participated willingly. Nurses who had corrupted their female wards and led them to sexual encounters would have molten lead poured down their throats.^[17] In the same year, Constantine also passed a law that said if a woman married her own slave, both would be subjected to capital punishment, the slave by burning.^[18] In AD 390, Emperor Theodosius issued an edict against male prostitutes and brothels offering such services; those found guilty should be burned alive.^[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_burning

 

When it comes to people finding ways to be cruel to other people, not much is new.

Burning people is an ancient form of capital punishment. Burning people for heresy seems to be an almost entirely European, Christian phenomenon. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

A lot of effort has gone into showing nineteenth century elements in the Book of Mormon, but in light of recent work by Skousen and Carmack I wonder if we should be looking for 16th or 17 century elements instead. Personally, I favor Joseph Smith's own explanation for how the Book of Mormon came to be, though I am interested in the expansion theory as a way to explain some apparent anachronisms. I can't buy into a pious fraud model because I don't think it's possible JS could have possibly produced the book. However, a 16th or 17th century pious fraud model is more interesting to me because it allows for a person (or persons) to have labored for years to produce the Book of Mormon and it accounts for the Early Modern English in the text. Admittedly it may present more problems than it solves, but I have been looking into several things in the Book of Mormon that seem to point to the late 16th or early 17th century. I have several examples but I will just give one for now to generate some discussion.

In Mosiah 17 Abinadi is burned to death for what essentially amounts to heresy. Later, in Alma 14 many heretics are burned to death by the people of Ammonihah. The practice of burning heretics at the stake was a common 16th century practice in Europe but had mostly died out by the beginning of the 17th century - over 200 years before JS dictated the Book of Mormon. Burning heretics at the stake seems to have originated in Europe almost 1,000 years after 600 BC so it's doubtful this practice was something the Lehites or Mulekites brought with them from the old world. But it's not just the practice itsself in the Book of Mormon that hints at 16th Century Europe. There are also several similarities to how it was practiced.

For example, Abinadi was given a chance to recant in order to save his life. In 16th Century Europe many of the people accused of heresy could also escape death by recanting. Many chose that option. (Some recanters were burned anyway, but were strangled first.)

Also, the Spanish Inquisition is known to have held mass burnings of heretics in the 15th and 16th centuries called auto-da-fe. These autos-da-fe are eerily similar to what we read in Alma 14, though I have not found any evidence that the Spanish included children in the mass burnings.

Mary I of England (Bloody Mary) is known to have executed close to 300 heretics over a five year period in the 1550's, mostly by burning. In one infamous episode she forced archbishop Thomas Cranmer to watch two other bishops' burnings. As a result, Cranmer repudiated his Protestant faith and rejoined Catholicism. (He ended up being executed anyway.) This episode is similar to Alma and Amulek's experience when they were forced to witness the burnings in Alma 14, apparently with the hope that this would force them to recant their faith.

The heretical scriptures of the people of Ammonihah were thrown into the fire and burned with them. Burning the writings of heretics was also common in 16th Century Europe (as it has been in many other eras). Recall that Martin Luther burned his Papal Bull of Excommunication and several other Catholic works in 1520. Predictably, many of Luther's works were burned in response. Later in the century Anabaptist and Calvinist writings were also burned. As part of the Inquisition many of the printers and book sellers were burned at the stake along with the books. In 1553, Servetus was burned at the stake in Geneva with a large bundle of manuscripts and books tied to to his waist.

The idea of burning heretics in the 16th Century was linked to the idea of burning in hell by people such as Thomas More and others. Thus Alma 14:14 seems appropriately ironic when Alma and Amulek are asked: "After what ye have seen, will ye preach again unto this people, that they shall be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone?"

Maybe I'm just cherry-picking here... or maybe these are mere coincidences... but it seems like the heretic-burning episodes I've referenced in the Book of Mormon make a lot of sense from a 16th Century European perspective.

It certainly seems worth following this approach, although some scholars have a slightly different take on how Abinadi was executed and what that means (Book of Mormon Central,  “Why was Abinadi Scourged with Faggots? (Mosiah 17:13),” KnoWhy #96, May 10, 2016, online at   https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/why-was-abinadi-scourged-with-faggots ).

Edited October 10, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

"Could the Book of Mormon be a 17th Century pious fraud?"

One Lutheran pastor actually wrote a book suggesting that the Book of Mormon was Joseph Smith's attempt to defend God.  See Robert N. Hullinger, Joseph Smith's Response to Skepticism (Signature Books, 1992).

[CV75]

If you can't recant more than once, are you re-can'ting when you try to?

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It certainly seems worth following this approach, although some scholars have a slightly different take on how Abinadi was executed and what that means (Book of Mormon Central,  “Why was Abinadi Scourged with Faggots? (Mosiah 17:13),” KnoWhy #96, May 10, 2016, online at   https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/why-was-abinadi-scourged-with-faggots ).

I've heard this explanation before but it's never seemed very reasonable to me. A literal interpretation of Mosiah 17:13: "scourged his skin with faggots, yea, even unto death" would make you think he was beaten to death with bundles of firewood. But that doesn't make sense because of the several mentions of flames and fire. It's obvious they lit the bundles and used those to burn him. Faggots are very specifically bundles of sticks. . . not individual fire brands as suggested in the link you posted. If you take "scourge" in a general sense to mean "punish" then Mosiah 17:13 sounds a lot like a normal stake-burning. On a related note, faggots were known to be symbolic during the 16th century. For instance, those who recanted were sometimes forced to carry faggots to a fire and ceremoniously place them into the fire instead of themselves being burned. Other recanters were forced to wear a faggot embroidered onto their sleeve. The odd phrase "scourged his skin with faggots" may simply just be a manifestation of the faggot-heresy symbol of that time period.

Edited October 10, 2017 by JarMan

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I've heard this explanation before but it's never seemed very reasonable to me. A literal interpretation of Mosiah 17:13: "scourged his skin with faggots, yea, even unto death" would make you think he was beaten to death with bundles of firewood. But that doesn't make sense because of the several mentions of flames and fire. It's obvious they lit the bundles and used those to burn him. Faggots are very specifically bundles of sticks. . . not individual fire brands as suggested in the link you posted. If you take "scourge" in a general sense to mean "punish" then Mosiah 17:13 sounds a lot like a normal stake-burning. On a related note, faggots were known to be symbolic during the 16th century. For instance, those who recanted were sometimes forced to carry faggots to a fire and ceremoniously place them into the fire instead of themselves being burned. Other recanters were forced to wear a faggot embroidered onto their sleeve. The odd phrase "scourged his skin with faggots" may simply just be a manifestation of the faggot-heresy symbol of that time period.

Excellent points, as long as we simultaneously realize that just such a torture and death was used in Mesoamerica.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Excellent points, as long as we simultaneously realize that just such a torture and death was used in Mesoamerica.

As noted earlier I have my doubts that Mosiah 17 is describing the beating of Abinadi with flaming cudgels. And I just can't imagine that anyone who was serious about it would beat someone with a bundle of sticks, flaming or not. Too heavy, too clumsy, and too much surface area to do maximum harm. Earlier I conceded that other cultures have used burning as a form of punishment. But European Christians seem to be the only ones to have done it to punish heresy. This seems to have been done for theological reasons. I've heard a number of theories on this: 1) Burning would prevent the body from being resurrected; 2) Burning was a gateway to the fire and brimstone awaiting the executed; 3) The church did not believe in shedding blood in punishing heretics (ironic, right). But whatever the reason, it's clear the burning of heretics was a specifically sanctioned Catholic form of punishment from medieval times up to the beginning of the 17th Century.

[JarMan]

I neglected to mention a third instance in the Book of Mormon where heretics were burned to death. This is in Alma 25 where the people of Amulon burned to death many of the converted Lamanites because of their belief in the religion of the Nephite prophets. It's interesting that in all three cases I've mentioned it was Nephites, not Lamanites or others, performing the executions. The executed, on the other hand, were all people who believed in the teachings of Abinadi as later taught by Alma, his son, and the sons of Mosiah. If you look at Abinadi and Alma as religious reformers, you can see a parallel with what happened in Europe where it was primarily the traditional Christians (the Catholics) executing the reformers.

[churchistrue]

I've heard Skousen use this logic in a presentation. My thought is that if you're just looking at the burning heretics issue (there are many other issues--but let's just isolate on this one), it doesn't seem any more likely to think 17th century than 19th century. Someone in the 19th century would be aware of what happened in the 17th century, and they might even be more likely than a 17th century writer to think it "sounds ancient".  

[Bobbieaware]

27 minutes ago, JarMan said:

As noted earlier I have my doubts that Mosiah 17 is describing the beating of Abinadi with flaming cudgels. And I just can't imagine that anyone who was serious about it would beat someone with a bundle of sticks, flaming or not. Too heavy, too clumsy, and too much surface area to do maximum harm. Earlier I conceded that other cultures have used burning as a form of punishment. But European Christians seem to be the only ones to have done it to punish heresy. This seems to have been done for theological reasons. I've heard a number of theories on this: 1) Burning would prevent the body from being resurrected; 2) Burning was a gateway to the fire and brimstone awaiting the executed; 3) The church did not believe in shedding blood in punishing heretics (ironic, right). But whatever the reason, it's clear the burning of heretics was a specifically sanctioned Catholic form of punishment from medieval times up to the beginning of the 17th Century.

I hope you'll forgive me if I say I find find this particular protestation against the Book of Mormon's authenticity to be particularly weak and silly. Whenever I've read the portion of Mosiah 17 that describes Abinadi's torturous death, it's always been quite obvious to me that what is being described is an extremely painful combination of the very well known corporal punishment known as birching, combined with burning the victim to death. In case you don't already know about it, birching famously involves bundling fresh, flexible birch twigs (or bundled fresh, flexible  twigs gathered from trees with characteristics similar to birch) that are used to whip (scourge) the individual being punished. The bundles of fresh, flexible twigs combine to administer a sharply stinging and skin ripping effect with each stroke of the faggot. Because the twigs are bundled into a faggot (a bundled multiplicity of twigs) the pain and tearing of the skin is rendered much worse than the use of a single switch of birch alone. Properly constructed, a faggot of fresh, flexible twigs would create suffering not unlike the scourging that Christ suffered when he was subjected to Rome's brutal flagellum. 

After Abinadi was savagely whipped by what appears to be more than one whipping faggot, we are told he was near death because of the brutality of the scourging. The blazing, encircling fire then finished King Noah and company's dirty work.

Please excuse the rather insensitive demonstration of the construction and use of a smaller version of birching faggot by a mother who says she intends to use the bundled twigs on a disobedient child. At any rate, it clearly makes my point.

https://youtu.be/nk2xDWYiJ_c

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I neglected to mention a third instance in the Book of Mormon where heretics were burned to death. This is in Alma 25 where the people of Amulon burned to death many of the converted Lamanites because of their belief in the religion of the Nephite prophets. It's interesting that in all three cases I've mentioned it was Nephites, not Lamanites or others, performing the executions. The executed, on the other hand, were all people who believed in the teachings of Abinadi as later taught by Alma, his son, and the sons of Mosiah. If you look at Abinadi and Alma as religious reformers, you can see a parallel with what happened in Europe where it was primarily the traditional Christians (the Catholics) executing the reformers.

Yes, it was primarily the Roman Catholics, but one needs to take notice of John Calvin doing the same in Switzerland.  Naturally, the Protestants (Calvinists in particular) do not like having attention called to their hypocrisy.  

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

I hope you'll forgive me if I say I find find this particular protestation against the Book of Mormon's authenticity to be particularly weak and silly. Whenever I've read the portion of Mosiah 17 that describes Abinadi's torturous death, it's always been quite obvious to me that what is being described is an extremely painful combination of the very well known corporal punishment known as birching, combined with burning the victim to death. In case you don't already know about it, birching famously involves bundling fresh, flexible birch twigs (or bundled fresh, flexible  twigs gathered from trees with characteristics similar to birch) that are used to whip (scourge) the individual being punished. The bundles of fresh, flexible twigs combine to administer a sharply stinging and skin ripping effect with each stroke of the faggot. Because the twigs are bundled into a faggot (a bundled multiplicity of twigs) the pain and tearing of the skin is rendered much worse than the use of a single switch of birch alone. Properly constructed, a faggot of fresh, flexible twigs would create suffering not unlike the scourging that Christ suffered when he was subjected to Rome's brutal flagellum. 

After Abinadi was savagely whipped by what appears to be more than one whipping faggot, we are told he was near death because of the brutality of the scourging. The blazing, encircling fire then finished King Noah and company's dirty work.

Please excuse the rather insensitive demonstration of the construction and use of a smaller version of birching faggot by a mother who says she intends to use the bundled twigs on a disobedient child. At any rate, it clearly makes my point.

https://youtu.be/nk2xDWYiJ_c

You may have missed my opening post where I said that I favor Joseph Smith's own explanation for how the Book of Mormon came to be.

At any rate, your explanation for the punishment Abinadi suffered doesn't add up. A faggot is a bundle of sticks used for fire starting or in earthwork fortifications. I have found no definition of faggot that implies it is used for striking somebody. Maybe you have. If so, please provide the reference. 

I can see why you might think the faggots were used to strike Abinadi because of the phrase "scourged his skin with faggots". But there are other definitions of "scourge" then simply to whip. Websters 1828 Dictionary has the following: 2) To punish with severity; to chastise; to afflict for sins or faults, and with the purpose of correction. 3) To afflict greatly; to harass, torment or injure.

In Mosiah 17:15 Abinadi says, "Behold, even as ye have done unto me, so shall it come to pass that thy seed shall cause that many shall suffer the pains that I do suffer, even the pains of death by fire". Later in verse 18 he says, "and then ye shall suffer, as I suffer, the pains of death by fire." Obviously Abinadi thought he was being burned to death. . . not whipped to death. He mentioned nothing at all about being whipped. The fulfillment of Abinadi's prophecy comes in Alma 25 when the seed of Amulon (one of King Noah's priests) "caused that many of the Lamanites should perish by fire because of their belief". Once again, there is no mention of any whipping. Further on the chapter says this, "Thus the words of Abinadi were brought to pass, which he said concerning the seed of the priests who caused that he should suffer death by fire. For he said unto them: What ye shall do unto me shall be a type of things to come. And now Abinadi was the first that suffered death by fire because of his belief in God; now this is what he meant, that many should suffer death by fire, according as he had suffered. And he said unto the priests of Noah that their seed should cause many to be put to death, in the like manner as he was. . ." This offers multiple confirmations that Abinadi's death was by fire and that those who followed suffered the same fate. And again, there is no mention or hint of any beating. But even if there was some sort of whipping or beating that happened beforehand, the point still stands that he and others ultimately died from being burned.

Edited October 11, 2017 by JarMan

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

I've heard Skousen use this logic in a presentation. My thought is that if you're just looking at the burning heretics issue (there are many other issues--but let's just isolate on this one), it doesn't seem any more likely to think 17th century than 19th century. Someone in the 19th century would be aware of what happened in the 17th century, and they might even be more likely than a 17th century writer to think it "sounds ancient".  

Wait, you've heard Skousen talk about burning heretics at the stake as it relates to the Book of Mormon? Do you possibly have a reference for this?

If someone is writing the Book of Mormon believing it to be a true, inspired story or is translating it with some expansion, the argument is that things from that person's world will subconsciously make it into the text. The burning of heretics is simply not part of Joseph Smith's world. (But it clearly would be part of the world of a 16th Century European.) It's another argument altogether to suggest that the composer of the text might consciously add things that "sound ancient." That line of thinking would be more along the fraud fraud model, not the pious fraud or expansionist model which are the models I am trying to address. 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

You may have missed my opening post where I said that I favor Joseph Smith's own explanation for how the Book of Mormon came to be.

At any rate, your explanation for the punishment Abinadi suffered doesn't add up. A faggot is a bundle of sticks used for fire starting or in earthwork fortifications. I have found no definition of faggot that implies it is used for striking somebody. Maybe you have. If so, please provide the reference. 

I can see why you might think the faggots were used to strike Abinadi because of the phrase "scourged his skin with faggots". But there are other definitions of "scourge" then simply to whip. Websters 1828 Dictionary has the following: 2) To punish with severity; to chastise; to afflict for sins or faults, and with the purpose of correction. 3) To afflict greatly; to harass, torment or injure.

In Mosiah 17:15 Abinadi says, "Behold, even as ye have done unto me, so shall it come to pass that thy seed shall cause that many shall suffer the pains that I do suffer, even the pains of death by fire". Later in verse 18 he says, "and then ye shall suffer, as I suffer, the pains of death by fire." Obviously Abinadi thought he was being burned to death. . . not whipped to death. He mentioned nothing at all about being whipped. The fulfillment of Abinadi's prophecy comes in Alma 25 when the seed of Amulon (one of King Noah's priests) "caused that many of the Lamanites should perish by fire because of their belief". Once again, there is no mention of any whipping. Further on the chapter says this, "Thus the words of Abinadi were brought to pass, which he said concerning the seed of the priests who caused that he should suffer death by fire. For he said unto them: What ye shall do unto me shall be a type of things to come. And now Abinadi was the first that suffered death by fire because of his belief in God; now this is what he meant, that many should suffer death by fire, according as he had suffered. And he said unto the priests of Noah that their seed should cause many to be put to death, in the like manner as he was. . ." This offers multiple confirmations that Abinadi's death was by fire and that those who followed suffered the same fate. And again, there is no mention or hint of any beating.

You didn't look hard enough. One of the definitions of a faggot is a mere bundle of twigs or sticks, not a bundle of twigs or sticks destined for a fire. And as has been amply attested, scourging with a bunch of twigs or sticks tied in a bundle has a long history of use in corporal punishment. In addition, there's nothing to preclude the possibility that Abinadi was bruttaly slammed about the body with the bundled sticks that were gathered for the fire. People have been beaten with all sorts of things, often with whatever crazy thing is at hand, and since the bundles of sticks were sitting there conveniently placed before them, what would stop his executors from using them to beat the prophet within an inch of his life before burning him to death? His hateful killers very likely thought that death by fire alone was too good for the man who prophesied God was going to destroy them if they didn't repent.

At any rate, whether Abinadi was whipped or beaten by bundled twigs or sticks, or whether he was gouged and poked by burning bundles of twigs of sticks, it's all perfectly plausible. Why does it seem to you that being whipped or beaten by bundles of sticks or poked and gouged by bundles of burning sticks is so Implausible? For able bodied men it is all easily done. It's not like beating or burning someone with sticks is far fetched, especially when those things were conveniently at hand. Like I said, you're being silly.

The reason why Abinadi spoke of many burning by fire is because he could foresee they were only going to be burned by fire but I not scourged with faggots as he was before suffering death by fire. You make it sound like all these very real possibilities are implausible or impossible when all of it is easily done. If you still gon't believe me, why don't you make an effigy and beat it with a tied bundle of twigs or sticks, or poke and gouge it with a tied bunch of burning twigs or sticks, and then let me know whether or not ithese things are phsically possible to do and whether or not someone could be badly injured by being assaulted in these ways? Case closed. 

Edited October 11, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[JarMan]

24 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

You didn't look hard enough. One of the definitions of a faggot is a mere bundle of twigs or sticks, not a bundle of twigs or sticks destined for a fire. And as has been amply attested, scourging with a bunch of twigs or sticks tied in a bundle has a long history of use in corporal punishment. In addition, there's nothing to preclude the possibility that Abinadi was bruttaly slammed about the body with the bundled sticks that were gathered for the fire. People have been beaten with all sorts of things, often with whatever crazy thing is at hand, and since the bundles of sticks were sitting there conveniently placed before them, what would stop his executors from using them to beat the prophet within an inch of his life before burning him to death? His hateful killers very likely thought that death by fire alone was too good for the man who prophesied God was going to destroy them if they didn't repent.

At any rate, whether Abinadi was whipped or beaten by bundled twigs or sticks, or whether he was gouged and poked by burning bundles of twigs of sticks, it's all perfectly plausible. Why does it seem to you that being whipped or beaten by bundles of sticks or poked and gouged by bundles of burning sticks is so Implausible? For able bodied men it is all easily done. It's not like beating or burning someone with sticks is far fetched, especially when those things were conveniently at hand. Like I said, you're being silly.

The reason why Abinadi spoke of many burning by fire is because he could foresee they were only going to be burned by fire but I not scourged with faggots as he was before suffering death by fire. You make it sound like all these very real possibilities are implausible or impossible when all of it is easily done. If you still gon't believe me, why don't you make an effigy and beat it with a tied bundle of twigs or sticks, or poke and gouge it with a tied bunch of burning twigs or sticks, and then let me know whether or not ithese things are phsically possible to do and whether or not someone could be badly injured by being assaulted in these ways? Case closed. 

Apparently you think I am making some silly attack on the Book of Mormon. I'm a Book of Mormon defender. See if you can read what I've written in that light. 

[Tacenda]

JarMan, curious what you think of the Book of Mormon's treatment of Columbus. Since it was Columbus Day the other day, or was Columbus Day which hopefully will be changed to  "Indigenous People's Day", was mentioned on another board as being so 19th century. Why would God condone a man like Columbus. And better yet why did we even give this dude the time of day in American history, so disappointing that we fell for this guy. Or was this something JS added? 

[churchistrue]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

Wait, you've heard Skousen talk about burning heretics at the stake as it relates to the Book of Mormon? Do you possibly have a reference for this?

If someone is writing the Book of Mormon believing it to be a true, inspired story or is translating it with some expansion, the argument is that things from that person's world will subconsciously make it into the text. The burning of heretics is simply not part of Joseph Smith's world. (But it clearly would be part of the world of a 16th Century European.) It's another argument altogether to suggest that the composer of the text might consciously add things that "sound ancient." That line of thinking would be more along the fraud fraud model, not the pious fraud or expansionist model which are the models I am trying to address. 

It was at a conference at BYU two or three years ago. I think it's on YouTube. Several from their research team presented including Carmack and a female. Forgot her name but her presentation was also interesting. 

[cdowis]

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Would rather up-vote this than "like" it, which I surely do not. 

Glenn

 

Where did the up-vote button go?

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

Apparently you think I am making some silly attack on the Book of Mormon. I'm a Book of Mormon defender. See if you can read what I've written in that light. 

So I read your original post and although you believe the Book of Mormon is true true you hypothesize about the possibility that it could actually be.a pious fraud because some of the wicked people in the Book of Mormon executed their enemies by fire. Why is it so hard to believe some of the wicked people in the Book of Mormon would execute their enemies by fire? And why does the practice have to somehow be connectedto the European Christianity when the Bible is filled with examples of people being executed by fire? The Old Testament contains many examples of the Lord slaying the wicked by fire. It also contains prophecies that the Lord will destroy the wicked by fire. The sacrifices of the temple were also consumed by fire. There are also Old Testament examples of the wicked using fire as a form of capital punishment and as a means of sacrificing human lives to idolatrous gods, such as the children of Baal worshippers who were often slain as human sacrifices by fire. The Book of Mormon people's had the brass plates of Laban and therefore would have been well aware of all the Old Testament's many examples human death by fire.

Not a few ot the people who were trapped in the twin towers on 9/11 jumped from extremely high heights to their deaths rather than burn to death. Everybody knows about the dreadful and terrifyingly destructive power of fire, so why is it hard to believe that the wicked people of the Book of Mormon were aware of the obvious universal fear of fire and in acts of terrorism harnessed it toward their evil ends?

Why put even more doubts in the minds of the wavering over something that isn't hard to believe at all? The wicked people of the Book of Mormon betimes executed those who refused to think as they do with fire. Why should this be hard to believe? Why unnecessarily connect this practice to European Christianity and needlessly minister doubts?

Edited October 11, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Glenn101]

10 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Where did the up-vote button go?

I don't know.