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

[JarMan]

25 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Does the accounts from the Book of Martyrs include torture using flaming sticks or bundles of sticks or are they just heaped at the feet of the victim and lit off?

 

I haven’t found any that include flaming sticks. I think I know where you’re going with this, though. Royal Skousen has a good commentary addressing the thing I think you’re alluding to. 

[Nevo]

20 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

To your other point later - but the short answer is that I was critiquing the standing as necessarily true. That's a fair reading but not the only reading given the possible mesoamerican context I mentioned. (Bodies were lain for burning and then fall down the temple steps) My point about sticks is fire requires sticks, so again it was an inference. (I brought this up originally) The bundled stick isn't in the text unless you are assuming "faggots" means that. However faggot also means the amount of sticks and not necessarily that they were bound with string.

Abinadi is explicitly said to have been bound and burned with faggots (which the OED describes as "a bundle of sticks, twigs, or small branches of trees bound together"). He is apparently standing when "the flames began to scorch him." Welch notes here that "by standing Abinadi symbolically connoted his innocence. . . . [and] gave greater testimonial and judgmental impact to his words" (Legal Cases, 204). After Abinadi speaks his final words, he falls, having succumbed to "death by fire" (Mosiah 17:20). All of this is consistent with burning at the stake, although no stake is mentioned.

The Mesoamerican analogue you propose, of a prone sacrificial victim having their heart cut out, then having a fire kindled in their chest cavity, then having their body thrown down the temple steps, doesn't really fit. Even if that accounts for the falling, there's no way Abinadi could have given his final speech after "the flames began to scorch him" without a heart. And you wouldn't really say that he "suffered death by fire," since the proximate cause of death was having his heart cut out of his chest.

As for Achan, he died by stoning. The burning—if it happened at all (this detail appears to be a later addition)—came after. In any case, it's fair to assume that Achan, being dead, wasn't standing or speaking when the flames began to scorch him (if they ever did).

BTW, I'd like to see some evidence for your claim that "faggot also means the amount of sticks and not necessarily that they were bound." In normal usage, faggot refers to a bundle of sticks, not simply a quantity of sticks. I see no reason to believe that "faggot" in the Book of Mormon refers to anything other than a bundle of wood.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Nevo

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

JarMan's model explains that better but then has other things it doesn't explain as well.

Such as...?

[Glenn101]

35 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I haven’t found any that include flaming sticks. I think I know where you’re going with this, though. Royal Skousen has a good commentary addressing the thing I think you’re alluding to. 

Where do you think I am going with it?

 

[JarMan]

3 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Where do you think I am going with it?

 

Some people feel that Abinadi was beaten or poked with burning sticks rather than set aflame. 

[Glenn101]

11 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Some people feel that Abinadi was beaten or poked with burning sticks rather than set aflame. 

I think that it is possible that he was beaten, poked, and finally set aflame.

 

[Calm]

"After Abinadi speaks his final words, he falls, having succumbed...."

Does someone tied to a stake fall?

I am wondering if this means the image it gives.

And standing because you are bound to a stake doesn't give the same impression of innocence to me that struggling to stay standing on one's own feet gives.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Does someone tied to a stake fall?

Only if gravity is involved. 

From the Book of Martyrs:

Quote

At last the extremity of the fire was so vehement against his legs, that they were consumed almost before the rest of his body was hurt, which made the whole body fall over the chain into the fire sooner than it would have done.

Quote

Crying upon God for mercy, a man with a bill pulled the fagots down, and when the flames arose, he bent himself towards that side; at length the gunpowder was ignited, and then he ceased to move, burning on the other side, and falling down at Mr. Latimer's feet over the chain that had hitherto supported him.

But I think even something like this would qualify as falling.

Quote

Then immediately bowing forwards, he yielded up his spirit.

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by JarMan

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

I think that it is possible that he was beaten, poked, and finally set aflame.

 

Skousen’s take is insightful. 

To take the text as saying scourged instead of scorched, we have to believe Abinadi was being beaten with a bundle of sticks. That just isn’t a very practical or effective way to torture someone. And I just don’t think “scourge” can be taken to mean “poke.”

In support of the use of “scorched” in this context, here are a couple quotes from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. 

Quote

Some time before the burning of these men, Nicholas Peke was executed at Norwich; and when the fire was lighted, he was so scorched that he was as black as pitch. Dr. Reading standing before him, with Dr. Hearne and Dr. Spragwell, having a long white wand in his hand, struck him upon the right shoulder, and said, "Peke, recant, and believe in the Sacrament. To this he answered, "I despise thee and it also;" and with great violence he spit blood, occasioned by the anguish of his sufferings.

Quote

Within a space after, a few dry fagots were brought, and a new fire kindled with fagots, (for there were no more reeds) and those burned at the nether parts, but had small power above, because of the wind, saving that it burnt his hair, and scorched his skin a little.

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by JarMan

[churchistrue]

On 2/12/2018 at 8:36 AM, Atheist Mormon said:

Your conclusion at the end you state "I don't believe BoM is historical". Then how can you believe it is true?

I guess you haven't read through the rest of this thread?

[Rajah Manchou]

“The Martyrdom of Polycarp” was a letter from the church in Smyrna to the congregation in Philomelium and surrounding area...The bulk of the letter then gives specifics on Polycarp’s death. 

This account shows clearly that elderly heretics being given a chance to recant and repent before being burned at a stake on a pile of faggots (which is compared to an eternal judgement) is not unique to the 16th century, or the Book of Mormon:

Polycarp 11:2
Then he said to him again, 'I will cause thee to be consumed by fire, if thou despisest the wild beasts, unless thou repent.' But Polycarp said; 'Thou threatenest that fire which burneth for a season and after a little while is quenched: for thou art ignorant of the fire of the future judgment and eternal punishment, which is reserved for the ungodly. But why delayest thou? Come, do what thou wilt.'

Polycarp 12:1
Saying these things and more besides, he was inspired with courage and joy, and his countenance was filled with grace, so that not only did it not drop in dismay at the things which were said to him, but on the contrary the proconsul was astounded and sent his own herald to proclaim three times in the midst of the stadium, 'Polycarp hath confessed himself to be a Christian.'

Polycarp 12:3
Then they thought fit to shout out with one accord that Polycarp should be burned alive. For it must needs be that the matter of the vision should be fulfilled, which was shown him concerning his pillow, when he saw it on fire while praying, and turning round he said prophetically to the faithful who were with him, 'I must needs be burned alive.'

Polycarp 13:1
These things then happened with so great speed, quicker than words could tell, the crowds forthwith collecting from the workshops and baths timber and faggots, and the Jews more especially assisting in this with zeal, as is their wont.

Polycarp 13:2
But when the pile was made ready, divesting himself of all his upper garments and loosing his girdle, he endeavored also to take off his shoes, though not in the habit of doing this before, because all the faithful at all times vied eagerly who should soonest touch his flesh. For he had been treated with all honor for his holy life even before his gray hairs came.

Polycarp 13:3
Forthwith then the instruments that were prepared for the pile were placed about him; and as they were going likewise to nail him to the stake, he said; 'Leave me as I am; for He that hath granted me to endure the fire will grant me also to remain at the pile unmoved, even without the security which ye seek from the nails.'

Polycarp 14:1
So they did not nail him, but tied him. Then he, placing his hands behind him and being bound to the stake, like a noble ram out of a great flock for an offering, a burnt sacrifice made ready and acceptable to God, looking up to heaven said; 'O Lord God Almighty, the Father of Thy beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, through whom we have received the knowledge of Thee, the God of angels and powers and of all creation and of the whole race of the righteous, who live in Thy presence;

Polycarp 15:1
When he had offered up the Amen and finished his prayer, the firemen lighted the fire. And, a mighty flame flashing forth, we to whom it was given to see, saw a marvel, yea and we were preserved that we might relate to the rest what happened.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

Only if gravity is involved. 

From the Book of Martyrs:

But I think even something like this would qualify as falling.

 

Were these guys tied to the stake?  Can't tell from the quotes.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Calm

[Rajah Manchou]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Were these guys tied to the stake?  Can't tell from the quotes.

Polycarp 13:3
Forthwith then the instruments that were prepared for the pile were placed about him; and as they were going likewise to nail him to the stake, he said; 'Leave me as I am; for He that hath granted me to endure the fire will grant me also to remain at the pile unmoved, even without the security which ye seek from the nails.'

Polycarp 14:1
So they did not nail him, but tied him. Then he, placing his hands behind him and being bound to the stake, like a noble ram out of a great flock for an offering, a burnt sacrifice made ready and acceptable to God

But this account from the Martyrdom of Polycarp predates the account in Foxe's Book of Martyrs by several centuries.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

I've also wondered about the reference to scalping in the Book of Mormon (Alma 44:13-15):

"And it came to pass that the soldier who stood by, who smote off the scalp of Zerahemnah, took up the scalp from off the ground by the hair, and laid it upon the point of his sword, and stretched it forth unto them, saying unto them with a loud voice: Even as this scalp has fallen to the earth, which is the scalp of your chief, so shall ye fall to the earth except ye will deliver up your weapons of war and depart with a covenant of peace. Now there were many, when they heard these words and saw the scalp which was upon the sword, that were struck with fear; and many came forth and threw down their weapons of war at the feet of Moroni, and entered into a covenant of peace. And as many as entered into a covenant they suffered to depart into the wilderness."

As far as I can tell, scalping was mostly unknown in Europe until the encounter with Native Americans. Would a European author/translator in the 16th or 17th century think to include the term "scalp" for something that was unknown as such until the late 17th century into the early 18th century? 

"The older English word scalp did not acquire its distinctly American meaning until 1675 when King Philip’s War brought the object renewed prominence in New England. Until then, the best expressions were compounds such as “hair-scalp” and “head-skin,” phrases such as “the skin and hair of the scalp of the head,” or the simple but ambiguous word “head.” Likewise, the only meaning of the verb to scalp meant “to carve, engrave, scrape, or scratch.” Consequently, English writers were forced to use “skin,” “flay,” or “excoriate” until 1676 when the American meaning became popular. French, Dutch, German, and Swedish speakers were also forced to resort to circumlocutions until they borrowed the English words in the eighteenth century." (source)

Edited February 15, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I've also wondered about the reference to scalping in the Book of Mormon (Alma 44:13-15):

"And it came to pass that the soldier who stood by, who smote off the scalp of Zerahemnah, took up the scalp from off the ground by the hair, and laid it upon the point of his sword, and stretched it forth unto them, saying unto them with a loud voice: Even as this scalp has fallen to the earth, which is the scalp of your chief, so shall ye fall to the earth except ye will deliver up your weapons of war and depart with a covenant of peace. Now there were many, when they heard these words and saw the scalp which was upon the sword, that were struck with fear; and many came forth and threw down their weapons of war at the feet of Moroni, and entered into a covenant of peace. And as many as entered into a covenant they suffered to depart into the wilderness."

As far as I can tell, scalping was mostly unknown in Europe until the encounter with Native Americans. Would a European author/translator in the 16th or 17th century think to include the term "scalp" for something that was unknown as such until the late 17th century into the early 18th century? 

"The older English word scalp did not acquire its distinctly American meaning until 1675 when King Philip’s War brought the object renewed prominence in New England. Until then, the best expressions were compounds such as “hair-scalp” and “head-skin,” phrases such as “the skin and hair of the scalp of the head,” or the simple but ambiguous word “head.” Likewise, the only meaning of the verb to scalp meant “to carve, engrave, scrape, or scratch.” Consequently, English writers were forced to use “skin,” “flay,” or “excoriate” until 1676 when the American meaning became popular. French, Dutch, German, and Swedish speakers were also forced to resort to circumlocutions until they borrowed the English words in the eighteenth century." (source)

Scalping is well known in North America. Was it practiced in Central America?

[Rajah Manchou]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

Scalping is well known in North America. Was it practiced in Central America?

I know so little about Mesoamerica, but I believe there's evidence, circular cuts on skulls, that scalping was also practiced by the Maya and Aztecs.

Also found this:

SCALPING AS A COMPONENT OF TERMINUS STRUCTURE RITUAL AT THE SITE OF BAKING POT, BELIZE VALLEY

"This paper presents evidence for the practice of scalping as a component of warfare-related Maya ritual. While an extensive and diverse repertoire of the manipulation, mutilation and curation of human remains is well known among the Maya, with varying purposes ranging from veneration to violation (Duncan 2005) and often conflating these, scalping has not to date been included within these behaviors. The examination of two crania deposited in ritual contexts in a causeway terminus structure at the site of Baking Pot in the upper Belize Valley (Figure 1) has led to the identification of scalping practices likely related to warfare and forming one component of the ritual violence carried out on these individuals. This article describes the context in which these crania were deposited, presents the osteological evidence for scalping, and contextualizes this practice within the better-known complex of rituals of violence and manipulation of human remains among the Maya."

Edited February 15, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Polycarp 13:3
Forthwith then the instruments that were prepared for the pile were placed about him; and as they were going likewise to nail him to the stake, he said; 'Leave me as I am; for He that hath granted me to endure the fire will grant me also to remain at the pile unmoved, even without the security which ye seek from the nails.'

Polycarp 14:1
So they did not nail him, but tied him. Then he, placing his hands behind him and being bound to the stake, like a noble ram out of a great flock for an offering, a burnt sacrifice made ready and acceptable to God

But this account from the Martyrdom of Polycarp predates the account in Foxe's Book of Martyrs by several centuries.

Thanks.  And apologies for my nitpicking...

[Brant Gardner]

A couple of notes. First on scalping. I remember reading an article that indicated that scalping in the northeast began with white settlers and was adopted by natives. That was from long ago, and the data may have changed by now. As for Mesoamerica, they practiced pretty much any brutal thing you can think of. There is a small figurine of a man with his scalp flayed off and streaming behind his head--so yes, they scalped.

As for burning, the accounts I am most familiar with are burning with bundles of sticks (which is, of course, what happened to Abinadi). I looked through the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies for the last several years and haven't found the article, so perhaps it hasn't yet been published, but Mark Wright and Kerry Hull found that the practice was very widespread from Central American up into North America. In many cases, the person was burned until they fainted, allowed to regain consciousness, and then burned again. Mark told me of one ritual where there was a very great fire and the sacrifice (I believe he said it was usually a woman) was swung to the fire over and over again.

Basically, Mesoamericans weren't kind enough to just burn at the stake. Depending upon how it was done (and yes, there have been studies), some arrangements had the person die of smoke inhalation before they were burned--so some versions of the European model were "kinder" than others (with kind be very relative, of course).

Skousen did suggest scorched rather than scourged. The word is not easily discerned, as I remember, and Skousen thought scorched went better with burning. He was aware of the Mesoamerican possibility, but he likes to look at the text and judge it without aid from context. 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I've also wondered about the reference to scalping in the Book of Mormon (Alma 44:13-15):

"And it came to pass that the soldier who stood by, who smote off the scalp of Zerahemnah, took up the scalp from off the ground by the hair, and laid it upon the point of his sword, and stretched it forth unto them, saying unto them with a loud voice: Even as this scalp has fallen to the earth, which is the scalp of your chief, so shall ye fall to the earth except ye will deliver up your weapons of war and depart with a covenant of peace. Now there were many, when they heard these words and saw the scalp which was upon the sword, that were struck with fear; and many came forth and threw down their weapons of war at the feet of Moroni, and entered into a covenant of peace. And as many as entered into a covenant they suffered to depart into the wilderness."

As far as I can tell, scalping was mostly unknown in Europe until the encounter with Native Americans. Would a European author/translator in the 16th or 17th century think to include the term "scalp" for something that was unknown as such until the late 17th century into the early 18th century? 

"The older English word scalp did not acquire its distinctly American meaning until 1675 when King Philip’s War brought the object renewed prominence in New England. Until then, the best expressions were compounds such as “hair-scalp” and “head-skin,” phrases such as “the skin and hair of the scalp of the head,” or the simple but ambiguous word “head.” Likewise, the only meaning of the verb to scalp meant “to carve, engrave, scrape, or scratch.” Consequently, English writers were forced to use “skin,” “flay,” or “excoriate” until 1676 when the American meaning became popular. French, Dutch, German, and Swedish speakers were also forced to resort to circumlocutions until they borrowed the English words in the eighteenth century." (source)

This seems to contradict then the whole theory?

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, JarMan said:

 

To take the text as saying scourged instead of scorched, we have to believe Abinadi was being beaten with a bundle of sticks. That just isn’t a very practical or effective way to torture someone. And I just don’t think “scourge” can be taken to mean “poke.”

You do have half a point there but to scourge has another definition also, i.e. "Cause great suffering to."  It would seem that one would not have to wander far afield to find such practices among the peoples in the lands where it is believed by many LDS scholars Lehi and his clan took up residence after they arrived.

Glenn

 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said:

A couple of notes. First on scalping. I remember reading an article that indicated that scalping in the northeast began with white settlers and was adopted by natives. That was from long ago, and the data may have changed by now. As for Mesoamerica, they practiced pretty much any brutal thing you can think of. There is a small figurine of a man with his scalp flayed off and streaming behind his head--so yes, they scalped.

As for burning, the accounts I am most familiar with are burning with bundles of sticks (which is, of course, what happened to Abinadi). I looked through the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies for the last several years and haven't found the article, so perhaps it hasn't yet been published, but Mark Wright and Kerry Hull found that the practice was very widespread from Central American up into North America. In many cases, the person was burned until they fainted, allowed to regain consciousness, and then burned again. Mark told me of one ritual where there was a very great fire and the sacrifice (I believe he said it was usually a woman) was swung to the fire over and over again.

Basically, Mesoamericans weren't kind enough to just burn at the stake. Depending upon how it was done (and yes, there have been studies), some arrangements had the person die of smoke inhalation before they were burned--so some versions of the European model were "kinder" than others (with kind be very relative, of course).

Skousen did suggest scorched rather than scourged. The word is not easily discerned, as I remember, and Skousen thought scorched went better with burning. He was aware of the Mesoamerican possibility, but he likes to look at the text and judge it without aid from context. 

What a way to go...yuck!

[mfbukowski]

Since we are all having fun discussing blood and gore and various ways of burning people, the purpose of which is unclear to me, I thought I might as well throw in some stuff which might actually be relevant to the Book of Mormon as well.

Growing up a young Catholic boy around 70 miles from Palmyra, in the 1950's, I was often taught the stories of the "Eight North American Martyrs" who were killed by the local Native tribes, in many cases using various fiery tortures.  The martyrs were Jesuit priests who lived among the local tribes from as early as 1624 into the 1650's.

These stories were well known in Western New York and sustained in Catholic lore, taught widely, and I am sure that Joseph Smith must have heard these stories- especially if he was exploring religions in the area- the stories would have been hard to be missed.  The combination of the "savagery" and gruesomeness contributed to their nearly salacious nature, and as this account shows, they were written a way which exploited these aspects of the history.

http://catholicism.org/eight-na-martyrs.html

Quote

... Even at night they were not left alone. While the professional rackers snored away, the little children approached the prisoners and dropped burning coals and faggots on their bare bodies stretched out on the ground and bound by stakes....

...Right away, Echon and five Hurons were kicked to their feet and commanded to sing their death song. And what a death song Echon sang as he poured forth sweet hymns to his Savior in the Huron tongue! Then, like ferocious lions, the savages grabbed the hands of this white giant and chewed this fingers to shreds while they led him to a post. Dropping to his knees Brebeuf kissed the wooden column as if it were the Cross of Christ. Then his broken hands were tied to it.

Echon knew well their heathen code. If the torturers could force from their victims a cry for mercy, they were the victors; but if the sufferer defied them to the end, they lost. Sustained by the grace of God, the holy priest was not going to ask for mercy nor utter any cry of pain, …indeed he would show no fear of them at all.

Revolving about in a satanic frenzy the braves began their sadistic orgy by placing burning sticks beneath Echon’s feet so as to make him “dance.” Flaming torches were then applied to his legs; one brave thrust a firebrand around his neck and beneath his armpits. But throughout all this, Brebeuf remained as insensible as a tree. He was totally absorbed in God.

Furious that they could not wring from him a plea for mercy, they commenced slashing off pieces of his flesh. As he endured the awful pain Echon would bellow at the top of his lungs, “Jesus, taiteur!” (“Jesus, have mercy on us!”) and the Hurons would answer, “Jesus, taiteur!” To keep him quiet they shoved flaming torches into his mouth. Then a collarbrand of green twine holding six red-hot hatchets was dropped over his head. As Echon struggled to fling the sizzling device from him, gleeful laughs rolled around the walls of the hellish dungeon until the rope burned through, dropping the glowing irons at his blistered feet. A belt of burning bark was then fastened around the priest’s waist, making of him a human torch and enveloping him in smoke rising from his own roasting skin. The Iroquois gazed in awe, spellbound that one could endure so much without showing a sign of pain.

While the weary executioners rested from this inhuman work, Echon, in imitation of his Divine Master, prayed for his persecutors, that they who were inflicting upon him so many wounds might by these same wounds be themselves converted and healed.

Hearing the Blackrobe speak of holy Baptism and the joys of paradise, a former Christian Huron, who had betrayed both his people and his Faith, mockingly addressed himself to the saint: “Echon, …you say that Baptism and the sufferings of this life head straight to paradise; you will go soon, for I am going to baptize you, and to make you suffer well, in order to go the sooner to your paradise.” Having said this, the hateful apostate took a kettle of boiling water and poured it over Echon’s head saying with bitter sarcasm, “Go to heaven, for you are well baptized.” To which infliction the pitiful victim responded, “Jesus, taiteur!”

Such defiance was more than the proud Iroquois could take. A warrior rose up and taking his knife chopped off Brebeuf’s nose; another carved off both his lips, and grabbing his tongue in his bloody hands, hacked off a large piece of it; after this, a third shoved a fiery brand up against his face, searing his mangled mouth. As he turned his bleeding head to heaven, his chest heaved a roaring, clean, but painfully guttural, “Jesus, taiteur!” These were the last words of Father John de Brebeuf.

His emaciated body lay silent now but his heart still beat. Though unconscious, his eyes were wide open and set fixedly upon his tormentors, still defying them, so they thought. Fearing this, an amazed brave closed them forever by prying them out with a flaming torch.

It was about four o’clock in the afternoon on the sixteenth of March when the pure soul of Father John de Brebeuf left his mortal body to go to God. He was just nine days away from his fifty-ninth birthday.

Martyrdom of Gabriel Lalemant

Meanwhile, Father Lalemant and the other prisoners lay herded together. Knowing the fate of his companion he prayed to him now for strength, as he was certain Father Brebeuf was already in heaven. The torturers now were looking at him.

Yanked to his feet, the little priest was shoved violently to a post. He knelt before it and kissed it; for him as for Echon, it was as precious as the Cross of Christ. The spirit of John de Brebeuf had inflamed Atironta with courage and a heavenly peace radiated visibly from his face.

First he had to endure the torture of the fire and the burning torches; then his arms and legs were closed over red-hot axes. The pain was so excruciating that his whole body shivered, yet his jaws were locked and no cry escaped his lips. Instead he repeated the same prayer as Echon with a gusty bellow: “Jesus, taiteur!” Such strength they in no wise expected, especially from one so frail.

He, too, had to undergo the unholy baptism which the apostate Huron performed again so fiendishly,…his charred and blistering body collapsing into unconsciousness after the scalding hot water had run its scorching course. Regretfully, they had to leave him to recover lest he should die at night while Areskoui, their sun god, to whom they wished to offer their victim, was hiding.

During the night, Father Lalemant came to, and, feeling the pain of his wounds, he lifted his voice in prayer seeking relief in God. To silence him once and for all a brave tore out his tongue with a knife and thrust fiery faggots into his mouth. Still not satisfied, they plucked out his eyes and stuffed burning coals into the empty sockets; others hacked off his hands, searing the stumps with red-hot axes. The heartless wretches then retired for the rest of the night.

 

And so the stories go on, including a few others

I would be surprised if Joseph had NOT heard these stories of the local Native tribes.  They were widely celebrated in Catholic culture in the area.

If I cared about such  scholarship, I would stop worrying about stories from Europe about burning people and concentrate on stories available to Joseph right in his own back yard.

There's got to be an article for publication for somebody interested in this stuff right here.

Edited February 15, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 10/10/2017 at 11:37 AM, 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.

There doesn't seem to be much of a point of this if the Hurons were burning Catholic missionaries with burning faggots in the mid 17th century right in Joseph's back yard.

You want another theory for Occam's Razor?

He heard the stories and included them in The BOM.

That's it.

[JarMan]

5 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I've also wondered about the reference to scalping in the Book of Mormon (Alma 44:13-15):

"And it came to pass that the soldier who stood by, who smote off the scalp of Zerahemnah, took up the scalp from off the ground by the hair, and laid it upon the point of his sword, and stretched it forth unto them, saying unto them with a loud voice: Even as this scalp has fallen to the earth, which is the scalp of your chief, so shall ye fall to the earth except ye will deliver up your weapons of war and depart with a covenant of peace. Now there were many, when they heard these words and saw the scalp which was upon the sword, that were struck with fear; and many came forth and threw down their weapons of war at the feet of Moroni, and entered into a covenant of peace. And as many as entered into a covenant they suffered to depart into the wilderness."

As far as I can tell, scalping was mostly unknown in Europe until the encounter with Native Americans. Would a European author/translator in the 16th or 17th century think to include the term "scalp" for something that was unknown as such until the late 17th century into the early 18th century? 

"The older English word scalp did not acquire its distinctly American meaning until 1675 when King Philip’s War brought the object renewed prominence in New England. Until then, the best expressions were compounds such as “hair-scalp” and “head-skin,” phrases such as “the skin and hair of the scalp of the head,” or the simple but ambiguous word “head.” Likewise, the only meaning of the verb to scalp meant “to carve, engrave, scrape, or scratch.” Consequently, English writers were forced to use “skin,” “flay,” or “excoriate” until 1676 when the American meaning became popular. French, Dutch, German, and Swedish speakers were also forced to resort to circumlocutions until they borrowed the English words in the eighteenth century." (source)

Scalping was practiced in medieval Eurasia. The most proximate example I have found is the English scalping their enemies in the Pequot war in the 1630’s. The word “scalp” appears in Shakespeare. 

[JarMan]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There doesn't seem to be much of a point of this if the Hurons were burning Catholic missionaries with burning faggots in the mid 17th century right in Joseph's back yard.

You want another theory for Occam's Razor?

He heard the stories and included them in The BOM.

That's it.

My hypothetical 17th Century author undoubtedly knew about burning heretics. It was part of his world. We have to guess that Joseph Smith knew about it. And then there are the over a dozen details I’ve identified so far that match. The likelihood my 17th Century author would have know these details is close to 100%. The likelihood for Joseph Smith? Who knows? It’s all pure speculation. But since this question can only be answered by speculation I’ll speculate close to 0%.