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

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

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

 

I made this same argument before I knew about Skousen’s scourged/scorched explanation. The point is that if the word really is scourged then by the alternate definition it could still mean they were used to burn him. 

[clarkgoble]

18 hours ago, JarMan said:

Such as...?

Mainly how the text gets to Joseph Smith.

 

18 hours ago, Nevo said:

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").

You're completely right on that and I was wrong. I was under the assumption that a faggot could be sticks that had been bound at one time or the bundle of sticks. Looking it up you're right it's typically only used for the bundles or as a unit of measure for bundles.

 

More later when I have time.

Edited February 15, 2018 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, JarMan said:

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%. 

Oh come on!

You didn't grow up in Western NY.  But I really don't care- it is totally obvious to me.

[clarkgoble]

We know that by 1834 Joseph had read Foxe's Book of Martyrs at least superficially when in Edward Stevenson's home. Commenting on it according to Stevenson Joseph said, "I have, by the aid of the Urim and Thummim, seen those martyrs. They were honest, devoted followers of Christ, according to the light they possessed. They will be saved." (Hyrum L. Andrus, They Knew the Prophet, pg. 83) I'd say that suggests exposure to it before then at a time when he was still using the seer stone. Suggesting that people were ignorant of these things in Joseph's environment seems dubious. That was a popular book and I wouldn't be shocked if it shaped the form the translation took relative to Abinadi even though I think there was a real Abinadi.

Edited February 15, 2018 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

We know that by 1834 Joseph had read Foxe's Book of Martyrs at least superficially when in Edward Stevenson's home. Commenting on it according to Stevenson Joseph said, "I have, by the aid of the Urim and Thummim, seen those martyrs. They were honest, devoted followers of Christ, according to the light they possessed. They will be saved." (Hyrum L. Andrus, They Knew the Prophet, pg. 83) I'd say that suggests exposure to it before then at a time when he was still using the seer stone. Suggesting that people were ignorant of these things in Joseph's environment seems dubious. That was a popular book and I wouldn't be shocked if it shaped the form the translation took relative to Abinadi even though I think there was a real Abinadi.

But of course Foxe died before the 8 Huron martyrs were even born, and I think Foxe's book was only about British Protestant martyrs killed by Catholics?  So even if Joseph read the book cover to cover, the Native American connection was not there.

I think we often think that America is "young" and relatively speaking of course it is, but still the 8 Huron martyrs died 200 years before Joseph was organizing the church etc.  

Two- Hundred years before Joseph, the Jesuits were right there in Western New York, preaching Christianity to the local Indians!

In fact those martyrs were contemporaneous with the alleged "true" writer of the BOM so now we can generate a new theory perhaps that the original angelic "translator"  had direct knowledge of the events of the Huron Martyrs deaths,   having lived perhaps at that time in the area of what became Palmyra, and so he had learned English as spoken during that time.

Or perhaps the writer was one of the Christian Indians converted by the Jesuits who upon death went to the other side and learned the gospel and accepted it, and having a copy of the plates- OR EVEN finding the plates in Cumorah a thousand years after Moroni deposited them and two hundred years before  Joseph found them,  came back and read the plates and spoke to Joseph through the seer stone.

There you go- a complete theory resolving this whole mess of the BOM being a 16th century translation.  The translator was an Indian Christian who found the Cumorah plates, died and learned the true gospel on the other side, and then served as translator who communicated the words to Joseph in the English the translating angel already spoke. 

Now can we drop this irrelevant history stuff and get on to actually learning how to live what the BOM teaches instead of worrying about where it came from? 

It came from God- isn't that good enough??  How do we know?  Testimony.  Nothing else matters.

Now maybe we can start talking about things which will edify each other spiritually instead of making up weird theories about the gold plates which can never be proven anyway??

Nah, ain't gonna happen because everyone is stuck thinking like Aristotle instead of Heraclitus.

Sigh.

Somebody write a movie about going back and killing Aristotle and making Heraclitus the philosopher king for the west instead and how different the world would be in that time line, please.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3750036?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

So there.

Now you've got a theory that solves the BOM AND a great sci-fi movie plot.

Not bad for one post. 

Edited February 16, 2018 by mfbukowski

[JarMan]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Mainly how the text gets to Joseph Smith.

In my model Joseph Smith reads the 17th Century English text off the seer stone. Alternately, the 17th Century English text is preserved and comes into JS's possession. What could be more straightforward? Seriously, I haven't heard a better explanation than this.

[JarMan]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh come on!

You didn't grow up in Western NY.  But I really don't care- it is totally obvious to me.

My hypothetical author was an accomplished writer that almost certainly knew about chiasmus. He was also a virtual encyclopedia of the bible and wrote extensively about the bible and the Christian religion, in general. He was a master historian who had read all of the classical greco-roman and jewish writers and was familiar with aspects of greco-roman history consisting of secret combinations almost identical to those found in the Book of Mormon. This hypothetical writer's views on atonement theory and soteriology are virtually identical to that found in the Book of Mormon. He wrote extensively on warfare and the rules of warfare and those rules are followed to a T by the righteous in the Book of Mormon. He was also a government official who served as a public official in a republican government very similar to the Nephite government during the time of the judges. During his life his free government came under attack by powerful people trying to establish a king. He wrote extensively about the ideal form of government, a righteous monarchy, which is reflected perfectly by King Benjamin and which is reflected in the perfect anti-type by King Noah. He wrote works of literature about the Garden of Eden and Joseph of Egypt and clear traces of those works can be found in the Book of Mormon. He was a known associate and admirer of Galileo accounting for the Galilean thought in the Book of Mormon. He was one of the greatest minds of the 17th Century and possibly of all time and his life reflects the absolute perfect qualities for someone capable of producing the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith was a semi-educated farmhand who probably didn't own a bible. He had very limited knowledge about just about everything he needed to know to produce the Book of Mormon.

But you are right about one thing. I didn't grow up in western New York.

Edited February 16, 2018 by JarMan

[JarMan]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

We know that by 1834 Joseph had read Foxe's Book of Martyrs at least superficially when in Edward Stevenson's home. Commenting on it according to Stevenson Joseph said, "I have, by the aid of the Urim and Thummim, seen those martyrs. They were honest, devoted followers of Christ, according to the light they possessed. They will be saved." (Hyrum L. Andrus, They Knew the Prophet, pg. 83) I'd say that suggests exposure to it before then at a time when he was still using the seer stone. Suggesting that people were ignorant of these things in Joseph's environment seems dubious. That was a popular book and I wouldn't be shocked if it shaped the form the translation took relative to Abinadi even though I think there was a real Abinadi.

Not to state the obvious, but superficially reading Foxe's Book of Martyrs after the Book of Mormon was published doesn't support Joseph as the source of the Book of Mormon.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

But of course Foxe died before the 8 Huron martyrs were even born, and I think Foxe's book was only about British Protestant martyrs killed by Catholics?  So even if Joseph read the book cover to cover, the Native American connection was not there.

I think we often think that America is "young" and relatively speaking of course it is, but still the 8 Huron martyrs died 200 years before Joseph was organizing the church etc.  

Two- Hundred years before Joseph, the Jesuits were right there in Western New York, preaching Christianity to the local Indians!

In fact those martyrs were contemporaneous with the alleged "true" writer of the BOM so now we can generate a new theory perhaps that the original angelic "translator"  had direct knowledge of the events of the Huron Martyrs deaths,   having lived perhaps at that time in the area of what became Palmyra, and so he had learned English as spoken during that time.

Or perhaps the writer was one of the Christian Indians converted by the Jesuits who upon death went to the other side and learned the gospel and accepted it, and having a copy of the plates- OR EVEN finding the plates in Cumorah a thousand years after Moroni deposited them and two hundred years before  Joseph found them,  came back and read the plates and spoke to Joseph through the seer stone.

There you go- a complete theory resolving this whole mess of the BOM being a 16th century translation.  The translator was an Indian Christian who found the Cumorah plates, died and learned the true gospel on the other side, and then served as translator who communicated the words to Joseph in the English the translating angel already spoke. 

Now can we drop this irrelevant history stuff and get on to actually learning how to live what the BOM teaches instead of worrying about where it came from? 

It came from God- isn't that good enough??  How do we know?  Testimony.  Nothing else matters.

Now maybe we can start talking about things which will edify each other spiritually instead of making up weird theories about the gold plates which can never be proven anyway??

Nah, ain't gonna happen because everyone is stuck thinking like Aristotle instead of Heraclitus.

Sigh.

Somebody write a movie about going back and killing Aristotle and making Heraclitus the philosopher king for the west instead and how different the world would be in that time line, please.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3750036?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

So there.

Now you've got a theory that solves the BOM AND a great sci-fi movie plot.

Not bad for one post. 

It matters who wrote it as much as historical context matters about any written work. 

[JarMan]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Yes. They had a chain about their torso that was fastened behind the stake. The chains were apparently too low and the top-heavy bodies toppled forward.

[clarkgoble]

19 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Not to state the obvious, but superficially reading Foxe's Book of Martyrs after the Book of Mormon was published doesn't support Joseph as the source of the Book of Mormon.

No but it says something about the availability in the area - plus he said he'd consulted the seer stone about them and that would mean in the period of the Book of Mormon up through Moses.

41 minutes ago, JarMan said:

In my model Joseph Smith reads the 17th Century English text off the seer stone. Alternately, the 17th Century English text is preserved and comes into JS's possession. What could be more straightforward? Seriously, I haven't heard a better explanation than this.

Ummm.... I think I'll bite my tongue on that one.

 

[JarMan]

25 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

No but it says something about the availability in the area - plus he said he'd consulted the seer stone about them and that would mean in the period of the Book of Mormon up through Moses.

Ummm.... I think I'll bite my tongue on that one.

 

Look, everything that was available in the 17th Century was available in the 19th Century if you look hard enough. And don’t you think it stands to reason JS saw the martyrs in the seer stone after he read about them rather than five years before?

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, JarMan said:

My hypothetical author was an accomplished writer that almost certainly knew about chiasmus. He was also a virtual encyclopedia of the bible and wrote extensively about the bible and the Christian religion, in general. He was a master historian who had read all of the classical greco-roman and jewish writers and was familiar with aspects of greco-roman history consisting of secret combinations almost identical to those found in the Book of Mormon. This hypothetical writer's views on atonement theory and soteriology are virtually identical to that found in the Book of Mormon. He wrote extensively on warfare and the rules of warfare and those rules are followed to a T by the righteous in the Book of Mormon. He was also a government official who served as a public official in a republican government very similar to the Nephite government during the time of the judges. During his life his free government came under attack by powerful people trying to establish a king. He wrote extensively about the ideal form of government, a righteous monarchy, which is reflected perfectly by King Benjamin and which is reflected in the perfect anti-type by King Noah. He wrote works of literature about the Garden of Eden and Joseph of Egypt and clear traces of those works can be found in the Book of Mormon. He was a known associate and admirer of Galileo accounting for the Galilean thought in the Book of Mormon. He was one of the greatest minds of the 17th Century and possibly of all time and his life reflects the absolute perfect qualities for someone capable of producing the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith was a semi-educated farmhand who probably didn't own a bible. He had very limited knowledge about just about everything he needed to know to produce the Book of Mormon.

But you are right about one thing. I didn't grow up in western New York.

And so then not Moroni, though still apparently a ghost.

Why don't we simply discuss the evolution of unicorns?  Or perhaps the exact location of Kolob?

Why do we even need this theory?  What is the theological need for it?  Is there ANY need for it? 

How many non-Mormon scholars are even considering this seriously?  Why should Mormon scholars do so?  What is it supposed to prove?  That the Book of Mormon is now true because it was "translated" by a 16th century ghost?  The idea that he was the author is even more preposterous to me.

But of course preposterous is ok with me- I agree with Bob Smith the preposterous nature of the Book indicates it is of divine origin because the scholar you propose above simply did not exist.  It's all a mysterious miracle.

Of course it is forbidden for True Blue Mormons to ask that question.  Well  I am a True Blue Mormon and I am asking it.  But I will wager I will get no answers.

It is just one more of a million mysteries about the BOM which are unanswerable.  Either we are able to accept that there are a million mysteries but believe anyway or become Methodist.  I just the former because it is a book of THEOLOGY, not history.  It is a scripture from God and is true for its theological content, not because its origin is explainable by conventional means.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

It matters who wrote it as much as historical context matters about any written work. 

Historical content is irrelevant to scripture or philosophy.  "Kant" was right or wrong regardless of whether or not that was the name of the author or when his books were written.

 We enjoy the plays of Shakespeare regardless of who wrote them.  That is a really lame reply.  I guess millions of Muslims would disagree with you about who wrong the Koran then, because they thought that maybe someone other than Mohammad wrote it, like perhaps God himself as delivered by Gabriel.  I guess they are dummies because they don't know about its "historical context"?   I think some Islamic scholars might disagree with you on that one as well as some Jewish ones as well.

THAT'S the problem here.   So we are back to thinking that historical information about the crucifixion somehow explains how God takes away our sins through the atonement.

Now we are in the realm of science vs religion, and therefore because evolution is a fact, we should not follow the 10 commandments.

Sigh.

I guess I am out of what seems to me a purposeless discussion.   This is actually fundamentalism at its worst.  Science is wrong because the Bible is history OR the bible is wrong because it is not scientific.

This is the reverse of the Scopes trial and just as pointless.  If we don't know the history it cannot be "true" in any sense because truth is based on historical context.

I assume that is what you mean by your 15 word explanation.

Edited February 16, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

 

Ummm.... I think I'll bite my tongue on that one.

 

Chickeeeennnnn.!!! 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

My hypothetical author was an accomplished writer that almost certainly knew about chiasmus. He was also a virtual encyclopedia of the bible and wrote extensively about the bible and the Christian religion, in general. He was a master historian who had read all of the classical greco-roman and jewish writers and was familiar with aspects of greco-roman history consisting of secret combinations almost identical to those found in the Book of Mormon. This hypothetical writer's views on atonement theory and soteriology are virtually identical to that found in the Book of Mormon. He wrote extensively on warfare and the rules of warfare and those rules are followed to a T by the righteous in the Book of Mormon. He was also a government official who served as a public official in a republican government very similar to the Nephite government during the time of the judges. During his life his free government came under attack by powerful people trying to establish a king. He wrote extensively about the ideal form of government, a righteous monarchy, which is reflected perfectly by King Benjamin and which is reflected in the perfect anti-type by King Noah. He wrote works of literature about the Garden of Eden and Joseph of Egypt and clear traces of those works can be found in the Book of Mormon. He was a known associate and admirer of Galileo accounting for the Galilean thought in the Book of Mormon. He was one of the greatest minds of the 17th Century and possibly of all time and his life reflects the absolute perfect qualities for someone capable of producing the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith was a semi-educated farmhand who probably didn't own a bible. He had very limited knowledge about just about everything he needed to know to produce the Book of Mormon.

But you are right about one thing. I didn't grow up in western New York.

Do you really get what a weird hodge-podge this is of scholarly analysis and off the wall weirdness?

This alleged person somehow got the text to Joseph with the gold plates supernaturally or naturally or WHAT?

I don't even know how this is all supposed to come together??  What is the full alleged explanation?  So is the BOM from God at all?  Is it all dictated by a ghost?

Could you just summarize it in a few words?

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Mainly how the text gets to Joseph Smith.

Yep

Very weird.

[JarMan]

Hugo Grotius or one of his associates is my hypothetical author. Grotius is the person I was describing “hypothetically” except that the descriptions provided are all accurate descriptions. He’s inspired by God to write the Book of Mormon while living in the bloodiest period of human history up to that time. The purpose of his work is to provide a code of governmental and international conduct most likely to result in peace. He also desires to bring all people to Christ including Jews and heathens. Essentially he is providing his vision of how to have peace on earth while also showing the path for eternal life. He writes his work in Latin, which is the language of scholarship at the time. He has close English friends who translate the work into English. This English text is what Joseph Smith read to his scribes. He either read the words directly off the seer stone in his hat through the assistance of divine providence or the text was preserved for 200 years and came into Joseph’s possession (through divine providence) and that is what he read to the scribes. This explains why the text is 17th Century Early Modern English and not Joseph Smith’s English. It is also consistent with practically every aspect of the contents of the Book of Mormon, least of which is the burning of martyrs. 

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep

Very weird.

Part of the confusion here is that this thread is four months old. This was soon after I first started looking into a 17th Century connection and I hadn’t discovered Hugo Grotius (the lynchpin of this theory) yet. I was still trying to make sense of the 17th Century connections in the Book of Mormon in terms of a more traditional view. Since that time I have done a lot of research and realized the matches between Grotius and the Book of Mormon are so numerous and precise that he absolutely has to be related to its production. He even wrote a dissertation hypothesizing about the origin of native Americans. Among the theories he discussed (but ultimately rejected) are that they are the Scythians who came after the tower of Babel and that the mesoamericans are the lost tribes. I’ve had several threads over the last few months discussing many of these things. 

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Historical content is irrelevant to scripture or philosophy.  "Kant" was right or wrong regardless of whether or not that was the name of the author or when his books were written.

 We enjoy the plays of Shakespeare regardless of who wrote them.  That is a really lame reply.  I guess millions of Muslims would disagree with you about who wrong the Koran then, because they thought that maybe someone other than Mohammad wrote it, like perhaps God himself as delivered by Gabriel.  I guess they are dummies because they don't know about its "historical context"?   I think some Islamic scholars might disagree with you on that one as well as some Jewish ones as well.

THAT'S the problem here.   So we are back to thinking that historical information about the crucifixion somehow explains how God takes away our sins through the atonement.

Now we are in the realm of science vs religion, and therefore because evolution is a fact, we should not follow the 10 commandments.

Sigh.

I guess I am out of what seems to me a purposeless discussion.   This is actually fundamentalism at its worst.  Science is wrong because the Bible is history OR the bible is wrong because it is not scientific.

This is the reverse of the Scopes trial and just as pointless.  If we don't know the history it cannot be "true" in any sense because truth is based on historical context.

I assume that is what you mean by your 15 word explanation.

I consider the Book of Mormon to be a literary masterpiece...perhaps the greatest ever produced in the history of the world. I believe it contains instructions for individuals and nations to follow that will help bring happiness, peace, prosperity, and freedom to all people. I believe it was commissioned by God through his prophet(s) and delivered to JS so that we can have it in our day. Understanding the context in which it was produced helps us better understand the intended message. Knowing the identity of the prophet can lead us to other enlightening writings we may have never considered to read. The Book of Mormon didn’t materialize out of thin air. Its production has a real history involving real people. It’s a mystery begging to be solved. And I actually believe that when the truth is discovered the Book of Mormon will cease to be a purely Mormon work. It will be recognized as an epic masterpiece in world literature produced by one of the brightest minds in history and be studied worldwide by many different people for many centuries to come. It will fundamentally change the world in ways we never imagined. 

[Rajah Manchou]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How many non-Mormon scholars are even considering this seriously? Why should Mormon scholars do so?  What is it supposed to prove? 

I've been in contact with a few non-Mormon scholars, and I've been surprised by how interested they are in the question. There are many open to serious discussion. There's just a very wide divide between what Mormons take for granted (eg. Mesoamerican histories being translated from Reformed Egyptian to Early Modern English and transmitted to a rock in a hat) and what everybody else thinks is cuckoo clock crazy. There's a real gap there.

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It is just one more of a million mysteries about the BOM which are unanswerable. 

The mysteries of the Book of Mormon are no more unanswerable than the mystery behind who wrote the (pseudo) Book of Jasher, the Ezourvedam, the Chatre Bhadre Shasta (pretty much the Plan of Salvation word for word written in India), or those other Mormon golden plates of Rajah Manchou, which are so very obviously a hoax for us true Mormons. Or even the 300+ page manuscript written in a strange 17th century script that ended up buried underneath Steven Mack's business partner's house in Detroit. 

We don't torture ourselves searching for the true authors of all these equally unique texts. How many Mormons even know about Rajah Manchou's Hill of Promise and the plates buried within. I'd say less than 1%. Yet somehow the mysteries of the Book of Mormon are a source of nonstop entertainment.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

Among the theories he discussed (but ultimately rejected) are that they are the Scythians who came after the tower of Babel and that the mesoamericans are the lost tribes. 

But this was an extremely common theory in the 16th and 17th centuries, even up to the publication of the Book of Mormon. I'd go as far as to say the most widely accepted theory in the 17th century about Native Americans, and all other related populations in the Indies, is that they were sons and grandsons of Noah who migrated from Egypt or Mesopotamia (by land or boat) and scattered through all the islands of the Indies, including America. Grotius is unique in that he was one of the first to reject this idea of Egyptian Priests, Jewish Brahmans and/or Magian Gymnosophists of some sort being the source of Egyptian, Indian, Chinese and Mayan hieroglyphics, religion and culture in general.

The Book of Mormon is not so mysterious, or out of place, or anachronistic if we look at it as an account of the islands of the Indies, exactly how any translator/author would have viewed it up until the early 19th century.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[JarMan]

On 2/14/2018 at 8:59 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

“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.

I read the entire account and there are some definite similarities. He was executed in public. They attempted to burn him at the stake. He was given several chances to recant  He bore the punishment in a dignified manner. His punishment was associated with hell.

But I think the differences are more significant. For starters Polycarp wasn’t being punished as a heretic. He was a member of a religious minority (Christian) being executed by the religious majority (pagan Romans) and the Jews. This would be more similar to the Christian execution of the Jews. Other differences: there were no legal proceedings. He was simply taken from his home straight to the stadium to be executed. He didn’t have an intervening period in prison where he was repeatedly questioned or humiliated. He didn’t give his final words as he was burning, but rather before he entered the flames. He did not have final words commending his spirit to God. He didn’t die in the flames but by being stabbed since the fire wouldn’t touch him. 

Still, this is the closest account by far that doesn’t correspond to the time period I put forth. 

[JarMan]

21 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

But this was an extremely common theory in the 16th and 17th centuries, even up to the publication of the Book of Mormon. I'd go as far as to say the most widely accepted theory in the 17th century about Native Americans, and all other related populations in the Indies, is that they were sons and grandsons of Noah who migrated from Egypt or Mesopotamia (by land or boat) and scattered through all the islands of the Indies, including America. Grotius is unique in that he was one of the first to reject this idea of Egyptian Priests, Jewish Brahmans and/or Magian Gymnosophists of some sort being the source of Egyptian, Indian, Chinese and Mayan hieroglyphics, religion and culture in general.

The Book of Mormon is not so mysterious, or out of place, or anachronistic if we look at it as an account of the islands of the Indies, exactly how any translator/author would have viewed it up until the early 19th century.

I know the lost tribes theory was common. But I’ve only heard the Tower of Babel connection mentioned by Grotius. And as I mentioned before almost everything from the 17th Century would have also been available in the 19th Century. The problem with the 19th Century model is you don’t have a convergence of all these various ideas in time and space. All the ideas have been scattered in the intervening 200 years. 

[Rajah Manchou]

48 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I know the lost tribes theory was common. But I’ve only heard the Tower of Babel connection mentioned by Grotius. And as I mentioned before almost everything from the 17th Century would have also been available in the 19th Century. The problem with the 19th Century model is you don’t have a convergence of all these various ideas in time and space. All the ideas have been scattered in the intervening 200 years. 

The tower, or rather the confounding of languages, is mentioned quite often. It was a favorite theme of the Jesuits who were hard at work 'translating' Indian, Chinese and American history to accommodate their efforts. This effort to translate 'native books' as a means of conversion extended well into the 19th century, and I would argue, culminates at Dartmouth where Solomon Spaulding, Ethan Smith, Hiram Smith, and Levi Spaulding studied the curriculum (which included a fair amount of Grotius) authored by the cousin of Joseph Smith's grandfather. Joseph Smith was too young of course, but the Native American prophets centered at Moor's Indian Charity School (Dartmouth) were waaaay closer to Palmyra than the Medieval Netherlands. Like "A Voice Crying from the Wilderness" they came to study the theology lectures of Dr. John Smith, which according to Richard Behrens, are an awful lot like Mormonism (source).

I'm not sure the 17th century Dutch prophet model is the only place where all the stars align.  

Edited February 16, 2018 by Rajah Manchou