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

[Rajah Manchou]

1 minute ago, Nevo said:

Thanks for your reply. I'm still not exactly clear on how you get from Nephi to Rabbi Barachias Nephi. 

It's actually not a connection I'm confident to make. This is as far as I'll tread with that question: 

(1) Nephi is a personal name given to an Egyptian Jewish scribe found in the Book of Mormon, and is also a hereditary or even dynastic title for his lineage.
(2) Nephi is the name given by Kircher as the Egyptian Jew author of a manuscript he copied from an original found in a library in Mainz, Germany.

I'll leave it to the Kircher scholars, and LDS apologists (not going to happen), to determine if the usage of the name in two independent sources is non-random. I think it highly improbable. What is your opinion?

7 minutes ago, Nevo said:

You say "let's suppose" that the Book of Mormon is "a genuinely restored ancient text with a fictional narrative"—so far, so good—but then you talk about Nephi and Moroni and Zosimus as real people and the Island of the Blessed Ones as a real place. You say: "If the Rechabite Island is the same as the Nephite Island, then a manuscript carried by Moroni/Nephi could also have found its way to Egypt."

Having been raised a Mormon, my brain processes the characters and geographies as real, but I acknowledge the likelihood that they are fictional. That goes for both Nephi and Zosimus. But even if fictional, the similarities between the accounts cannot be easily dismissed. As our favorite non-Mormon Mormon has said: 

"The extraordinary similarity between a text that is sometimes called the History of the Rechabites and sometimes the Narrative of Zosimus—the extraordinary similarity between this story and the story of Lehi leaving Jerusalem—has already been studied by Mormon scholars. This ancient text, which survives in Greek, Syriac, and Ethioptic, tells the story of some people who left Jerusalem about 600 BCE and they went to live in a “blessed land.” They didn’t drink wine. They were called the sons of Rechab, which could mean that Rechab was their ancestor, or it could be the Hebrew way of saying that they were temple servants, priests who served the divine throne. In their blessed lands, angels had announced to them the incarnation of the Word of God from the holy virgin who is the mother of God. Nobody can explain this text."- Margaret Barker

Barker does not dismiss the possibility that the Rechabites "might have been the devotees of the chariot throne in the temple who fled from Jerusalem after Josiah’s purge, and settled somewhere across a great sea." The Island of the Blessed Ones appears to me to be loosely based on a real location. I've discussed this in other threads here without much success, so I'll leave some of the primary and secondary resources I've used to reach my conclusion here. I'd appreciate hearing your opinion on the matter:

Expositio totius mundi et gentium, Coedès 1910:104-8
Odoiporiai apo Edem mekhri tön Römaiön' (Itineraries from Eden to the lands of the Byzantines), Klotz 1910; Pigulevskaya 1951:115-28, 408- 10
Voyage beyond the three seas, Afanasiy Nikitin
Akhbār al-zamān, Unknown

I realize its a total pain to go find these, but I can send you links if you are interested. But these secondary sources by the only scholar to touch the topic summarizes the above to make the argument that the East Indies were the Islands of the Blessed:

Two eastern Christian sources on Medieval Nusantara, Vladimir Braginsky
Images of Nusantara in Russian Literature, Vladimir Braginsky

What is most striking to me is that Braginsky identifies the Island of the Blessed as an island called Qamara or Comoro. Critics are convinced the usage of Comoro/Cumorah in the Book of Mormon cannot be a coincidence. Its even laid out in detail in the CES Letter. But no one seems ready to talk about how the Comoros Islands inherited the real world name for the leading candidate for the Rechabite Island of the Blessed.

[Rajah Manchou]

8 hours ago, Nevo said:

I dusted off my copy of Charlesworth's The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and skimmed "The History of the Rechabites." It seems pretty clear that the island of the Blessed Ones is a mythical place, on another plane of existence, where the inhabitants live a Millennium-like existence: "And again we announce to you, O brothers, that among us here there is no sickness, pain, fatigue to our bodies, mutilation, weariness, or temptations; not even Satan's power can touch us, for there is not among us rage, jealousy, evil desire, or hateful thoughts" (14:1). 

Remember the apocryphal accounts of the Island of the Blessed would have dated to the period of peace following Christ's visit. Considering the near Zion-like nature of the Lehites during the centuries that the Book of Mormon skips over. You mentioned the Millenium-like existence of the Rechabites, a land with no sickness or temptations or hate. This becomes a supporting argument for the idea that the 4th Nephi account and the History of the Rechabites are in sync during the first few centuries of the Christian era.

"And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift....And there were great and marvelous works wrought by the disciples of Jesus, insomuch that they did heal the sick, and raise the dead, and cause the lame to walk, and the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear; and all manner of miracles did they work among the children of men; and in nothing did they work miracles save it were in the name of Jesus."

8 hours ago, Nevo said:

Also, everyone is naked. That doesn't sound much like the Nephite island to me.

Christopher Knights found the same contradiction in the History of the Rechabites. We wouldn't imagine righteous Israelites walking around naked. Knights proposed that the Blessed Ones are not naked, a term absent in some versions of the account, but are rather wearing the garment of immortality. So who knows, maybe the Nephites were 'naked' in their Zion-like state in 4th Nephi.

"But we are naked not as you suppose, for we are covered with a covering of glory; and we do not show each other the private parts of our bodies. But we are covered with a stole of glory (similar to that) which clothed Adam and Eve before they sinned.” - History of the Rechabites, edited by James H. Charlesworth

Either way, I don't think its a critical issue until scholars can pinpoint why an authentic Jewish-Christian text refers to nudists as The Blessed Ones.

8 hours ago, Nevo said:

And Zosimus, it should be noted, doesn't travel there by boat but is carried through the air and "over the great ocean" by two magical trees (3:4). 

Correct. The Rechabites were carried from Jerusalem to an island set aside for them by God in the 6th century BC. Zosimus later petitioned God to be allowed to visit them, even though outsiders were not permitted, it being an island set aside for the righteous Rechabites. After his visit, Zosimus returned home to his monastery with stone tablets or scrolls that he was given on the island. According to Charlesworth, this account of Zosimus probably dates between the 1st and 4th centuries AD, roughly the 4th Nephi period. That's kinda what I was getting at with my Nephi manuscript in Cairo comment. But again, its too much of a stretch at this point, and I have probably stretched beyond anybody's ability to read this far already.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[cdowis]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

2008 is old technology when it comes to DNA testing as I understand it.

OK, so please cite recent studies which specifically refute these findings.  You are using the "anything is possible" argument without any evidence at all.

[Calm]

I am not arguing anything. I just said I had heard that some caution needs to be used for making such claims because the technology ages quickly.  I am asking Ugo for further clarification on what he meant and I asked him specifically about this case, but not sure if he will be able to respond very soon.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Calm

[Nevo]

15 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

It's actually not a connection I'm confident to make. This is as far as I'll tread with that question: 

(1) Nephi is a personal name given to an Egyptian Jewish scribe found in the Book of Mormon, and is also a hereditary or even dynastic title for his lineage.
(2) Nephi is the name given by Kircher as the Egyptian Jew author of a manuscript he copied from an original found in a library in Mainz, Germany.

I'll leave it to the Kircher scholars, and LDS apologists (not going to happen), to determine if the usage of the name in two independent sources is non-random. I think it highly improbable. What is your opinion?

I'm a great believer in coincidences. I think it's entirely possible that the Book of Mormon Nephi and Rabbi Barachias Nephi are totally unrelated. It's also possible that both names derive from the place-name "Nephi" in the Vulgate and KJV translations of 2 Maccabees 1:36.

I also think you overstate the parallels. The Book of Mormon never says anything about Nephi being an Egyptian Jew. There's no indication that Nephi or his family ever lived anywhere other than "at Jerusalem." In fact, Nephi says his father "dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days" (1 Ne. 1:4). As for the author of Kircher's mysterious manuscript, Kircher couldn't seem to keep straight what his name was or whether he was a Jewish rabbi from Babylon or an Arab. So it's difficult to positively identify him as an Egyptian Jew (I don't buy Stolzenberg's proposal that "Babylon" actually meant Old Cairo).

Furthermore, given Kircher's reputation among some contemporaries as "more charlatan than scholar" (Descartes) and "a mountebank" (Archbishop Ussher), and given that the manuscript that Kircher supposedly worked from has never been located and its author is otherwise unattested, and given that Kircher was unwilling to let anyone else examine the manuscript, and given the derivative nature of many of the excerpts that he did publish, I think there's a strong possibility that he made it all up.

 

Quote

The Island of the Blessed Ones appears to me to be loosely based on a real location. I've discussed this in other threads here without much success, so I'll leave some of the primary and secondary resources I've used to reach my conclusion here. I'd appreciate hearing your opinion on the matter.

Thanks for the sources. I briefly looked over the first Braginsky article but I didn't see where he identified Qamara/Comoro as the Island of the Blessed Ones. I'll take a closer look when I have more time. Here I would just mention James Charlesworth's comments on the likely sources of the History of the Rechabites' depiction of the abode of the blessed ones (which I'm too lazy to transcribe right now):

Clearly, this legend was commonplace in antiquity and it evidently lived on in some form through the Middle Ages. I don't think there is any point in looking for a real-world location behind it. It was always at the end of the world, wherever that was.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Nevo

[Rajah Manchou]

5 hours ago, Nevo said:

I'm a great believer in coincidences. I think it's entirely possible that the Book of Mormon Nephi and Rabbi Barachias Nephi are totally unrelated. It's also possible that both names derive from the place-name "Nephi" in the Vulgate and KJV translations of 2 Maccabees 1:36.

Or maybe they both got it by dropping the "lim" from Nephilim, or the 'tal' from Naphtali. Its also (very) possible that Kircher made it all up and a 19th century author had read Kircher. I have no bias about the name Nephi and how it ended up in the Book of Mormon. You could literally give me any explanation, prove it true, and I would be entertained. Coincidence is surely a possibility, but seems the least probable. 

5 hours ago, Nevo said:

I also think you overstate the parallels. The Book of Mormon never says anything about Nephi being an Egyptian Jew. There's no indication that Nephi or his family ever lived anywhere other than "at Jerusalem." In fact, Nephi says his father "dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days" (1 Ne. 1:4).

But you don't have to live in Egypt to have an Egyptian name. For example, you might have dwelt in Jerusalem with your tribe that came from Egypt, and your paternal DNA could be Jewish and your maternal DNA could be Egyptian. So you wold be Egyptian Jewish, and your parents give you an Egyptian name.

Lehi and Nephi were Tribe of Manasseh. Manasseh was the son of Joseph and Asenath. Asenath was Egyptian. I have no idea if there really was a Manasseh, Asenath, Lehi or Nephi, but it seems to me that Egyptian Jew is not an overstatement. 

5 hours ago, Nevo said:

I don't buy Stolzenberg's proposal that "Babylon" actually meant Old Cairo.

But Stolzenberg wrote one of the most thorough biographies of Athanasius Kircher. 

5 hours ago, Nevo said:

Thanks for the sources. I briefly looked over the first Braginsky article but I didn't see where he identified Qamara/Comoro as the Island of the Blessed Ones. I'll take a closer look when I have more time.

Its in his book Images of Nusantara in Russian Literature. I took a snap. 

I should clarify that Braginsky identifies Qamara (or the Malay Archipelago) as the Island of the Blessed Ones in Russian literature. This includes some Slavonic and Armenian versions of Zosima and his voyage to the Rahmans, or the Camarini. Rahmans are roughly equal to the naked gymnosophists or Brahmans, while the Blessed Ones come from the Land of Judah.


 

5 hours ago, Nevo said:

Clearly, this legend was commonplace in antiquity and it evidently lived on in some form through the Middle Ages. I don't think there is any point in looking for a real-world location behind it. It was always at the end of the world, wherever that was.

Depictions of an island paradise are commonplace. But a number of Mormon and non-Mormon scholars see unique similarities between the Book of Mormon account and the History of the Rechabites. So we might look at other versions of the Rechabite account from antiquity through the Middle Ages to see if there are similarities between the Nephite Land of Promise and the Rechabite Island of the Blessed. In the case of Zosima's Island of the Blessed, Braginsky has written a well-researched book identifying it with a real world location.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[cdowis]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not arguing anything. I just said I had heard that some caution needs to be used for making such claims because the technology ages quickly.  I am asking Ugo for further clarification on what he meant and I asked him specifically about this case, but not sure if he will be able to respond very soon.

I look forward to his response.

[Lagrange]

I find Rajah's hypothesis absolutely fascinating and overall quite convincing.  It opens up a whole new world of inquiry concerning the Book of Mormon,  comparative religion and much else.  My feeling is that much of the division between Abrahamic Faith and, say, Brahmic Faith, is largely artificial. 

I've never seen anyone hit so many bulls-eyes in such short order. 

 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Lagrange said:

I find Rajah's hypothesis absolutely fascinating and overall quite convincing.  It opens up a whole new world of inquiry concerning the Book of Mormon,  comparative religion and much else.  My feeling is that much of the division between Abrahamic Faith and, say, Brahmic Faith, is largely artificial. 

I've never seen anyone hit so many bulls-eyes in such short order. 

Hi Lagrange. I've got quite a load of notes on this topic if you are interested. Would love some criticism and feedback, and would be happy to share in DM or otherwise. Could also start another post, but it usually ends up being me talking to myself. Seems every time I bring up this topic, I kill a thread. : )

[Glenn101]

On 2/22/2018 at 6:22 PM, JarMan said:

Paanchi and Pahoran are supposed to be Egyptian names according to Nibley. But I don't think he makes a convincing case. Even so, some 17th Century scholars such as Athanasius Kircher were studying Egyptian and publishing about it at the time. It's not unreasonable my hypothetical author could have been exposed to Egyptian names. Also, he did know Hebrew and could have easily come up with sheum. As far as NHM, it's possible this name was known in the 17th Century.

I do not know what it would take to convince you of how probable are Nibley's observations when a non-LDS scholar, William F. Albright was surprised to find Egyptian names (Paanchi and Pahoran) in the Book of Mormon. Information on the Egyptian language was practically nil until the discovery of the Rosetta Stone in 1799 I believe. And it was not until 1820 or so when the different accounts were actually deciphered. The information on the Egyptian language was in its infancy when Joseph produced the Book of Mormon. The chance your hypothetical author had any knowledge of Egyptian language and names is practically nil.

Glenn 

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I do not know what it would take to convince you of how probable are Nibley's observations when a non-LDS scholar, William F. Albright was surprised to find Egyptian names (Paanchi and Pahoran) in the Book of Mormon. Information on the Egyptian language was practically nil until the discovery of the Rosetta Stone in 1799 I believe. And it was not until 1820 or so when the different accounts were actually deciphered. The information on the Egyptian language was in its infancy when Joseph produced the Book of Mormon. The chance your hypothetical author had any knowledge of Egyptian language and names is practically nil.

Glenn 

Coptic. 17th Century scholars learned Coptic. I’ve already pointed out that Kircher knew it and studied it extensively. 

[Physics Guy]

On 2/27/2018 at 2:09 PM, Glenn101 said:

Information on the Egyptian language was practically nil until the discovery of the Rosetta Stone in 1799.

If this had been true, the Rosetta Stone would not have helped much. The Rosetta Stone was not the key to deciphering Egyptian. It was the key to deciphering hieroglyphics.

The reason that there could even be a key to deciphering hieroglyphics was that the Egyptian language had never been lost. It evolved a bit, but it was preserved as Coptic, which had simply stopped using the hieroglyphic script. Jean-François Champollion was able to unravel all the hieroglyphics rather quickly once he got the idea to consider them as an archaic alphabet for Coptic, which he (and other scholars) spoke.

The idea that ancient Egyptian was archaic Coptic had been suggested in the early 1650's by Athanasius Kircher, moreover, in a prominent book about ancient Egypt. So it is not inconceivable that a 17th century scholar who was trying to salt his fake ancient document  with some authentic ancient Egyptian names would have dug up a few Coptic names and used them.

I mention this because I only recently learned about ancient Egyptian being Coptic, despite having read about Champollion and the Rosetta Stone many times. It's a good example of how popular accounts of scientific discoveries often omit crucially important details, even when they are easy to explain and the story makes no sense at all without them. If you imagine that ancient Egyptian was a dead language, then it's extremely hard to understand how anyone could ever decipher it. Once you realize that the language was known, just not the hieroglyphic alphabet, it's easy to understand how decipherment could happen quite quickly. It's also easy to understand how the translation of such ancient texts can be surprisingly reliable. Egyptologists really can read ancient Egyptian—it's not just a pretense that they all agree to maintain.

I don't really suppose that the Book of Mormon was composed in the 17th century. Coptic must have been quite obscure in the 17th century; it got a lot more press with the Egyptian mania of the early 1800s. The decipherment of hieroglyphics was major world news in the 1820's, however. The contemporary enthusiasm over translating ancient Egyptian might well have been a reason for an 1820's con artist to choose a translated ancient text as his gimmick, instead of simply claiming to have had a vision or dream of his own. Translated ancient texts were all the rage in Smith's time, and Americans especially would have been happy to have some local ones of their own to compare with all that wonderful stuff way over in Egypt.

Edited March 1, 2018 by Physics Guy

[clarkgoble]

On 2/27/2018 at 10:41 AM, JarMan said:

Coptic. 17th Century scholars learned Coptic. I’ve already pointed out that Kircher knew it and studied it extensively. 

True but he still treated hieroglyphics like ideograms too much. He could have and should have made the leap to translating Egyptian glyphs but was too caught up on frankly fanciful stuff that was so typical of the Renaissance. That said his views remained influential among some long after they should have and maybe an indirect influence on how Joseph Smith saw heiroglyphics. (Meaning the Book of Abraham) There are some (some - not a ton) of parallels between the Alphabet and Grammar and Kircher. Of course if one thinks this is Joseph and companion working backwards this isn't surprising.

Anyways as interesting as the Egyptian Oedipus is (and I find it fascinating) there's a real good reason why it was called "one of the most learned monstrosities of all time."

[EdGoble]

On 10/10/2017 at 12:37 PM, 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.

 

It's amazing to me the lengths that some people will go with complex scenarios that they suggest for how the Book of Mormon could have been produced.  Doesn't this imply quite an organized and carefully planned conspiracy, only to have some kid in the 19th century be groomed by some hidden group to be the person that they claim translated it?  For what purpose?

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

It's amazing to me the lengths that some people will go with complex scenarios that they suggest for how the Book of Mormon could have been produced.  Doesn't this imply quite an organized and carefully planned conspiracy, only to have some kid in the 19th century be groomed by some hidden group to be the person that they claim translated it?  For what purpose?

Maybe it was written by a 17th Century prophet and then brought to the world by a 19th Century prophet. No conspiracy necessary. 

[JarMan]

7 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

I don't really suppose that the Book of Mormon was composed in the 17th century. Coptic must have been quite obscure in the 17th century; it got a lot more press with the Egyptian mania of the early 1800s. The decipherment of hieroglyphics was major world news in the 1820's, however. The contemporary enthusiasm over translating ancient Egyptian might well have been a reason for an 1820's con artist to choose a translated ancient text as his gimmick, instead of simply claiming to have had a vision or dream of his own. Translated ancient texts were all the rage in Smith's time, and Americans especially would have been happy to have some local ones of their own to compare with all that wonderful stuff way over in Egypt.

Egyptology was new and fascinating among 17th Century European intellectuals in much the same way it was among 19th Century average Americans. So it doesn’t seem out of place to me to have Egyptian-related stuff in a work produced by a 17th Century European scholar. 

[EdGoble]

10 hours ago, JarMan said:

Maybe it was written by a 17th Century prophet and then brought to the world by a 19th Century prophet. No conspiracy necessary. 

And kept secret by this secret prophet and secret group of people (a Religious Masonic Illiminati type of group?)  until it came time for one of their "prophets" to "come out" from this secrecy and lie about its origin, he himself claiming the entire responsibility for a "translation" through a stone.

It takes the pious fraud theory to a whole other level, and has as much credibility as New World Order conspiracy theory.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

And kept secret by this secret prophet and secret group of people (a Religious Masonic Illiminati type of group?)  until it came time for one of their "prophets" to "come out" from this secrecy and lie about its origin, he himself claiming the entire responsibility for a "translation" through a stone.

It honestly sounds like the way some of my non-Mormon Bible Belt friends growing up would describe Mormonism.

Actually, reading through what you wrote, you are describing Mormonism fairly accurately. 

The Golden Plates were kept secret by the ancient prophet Moroni until it came time for a prophet of a new Masonic-type religious group to come out, claiming the entire responsibility for a translation through a stone. 

Edited March 2, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[EdGoble]

20 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Actually, reading through what you wrote, you are describing Mormonism fairly accurately. 

The Golden Plates were kept secret by the ancient prophet Moroni until it came time for a prophet of a new Masonic-type religious group to come out, claiming the entire responsibility for a translation through a stone. 

LOL.  Taking it entirely out of the context that I meant it, and putting that kind of a twist on it, I can see how you would think that.

[Rajah Manchou]

12 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

LOL.  Taking it entirely out of the context that I meant it, and putting that kind of a twist on it, I can see how you would think that.

I remember an advertisement in my small town newspaper for a Saturday Sermon given at a nearby church about Joseph Smith and his MasonicIlluminatiTemplarOccult, or something. I had no idea what any of those words meant, but the next Monday at school was sure interesting.

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I remember an advertisement in my small town newspaper for a Saturday Sermon given at a nearby church about Joseph Smith and his MasonicIlluminatiTemplarOccult, or something. I had no idea what any of those words meant, but the next Monday at school was sure interesting.

I'll bet!!

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, EdGoble said:

And kept secret by this secret prophet and secret group of people (a Religious Masonic Illiminati type of group?)  until it came time for one of their "prophets" to "come out" from this secrecy and lie about its origin, he himself claiming the entire responsibility for a "translation" through a stone.

It takes the pious fraud theory to a whole other level, and has as much credibility as New World Order conspiracy theory.

You are making unwarranted assumptions. There doesn’t need to be a conspiracy. The 17th Century prophet simply hides away or destroys the work. Nobody on earth knows anything about it for almost 200 years until an angel comes and tells Joseph about it. Then he transmits the work using the seer stone. 

Alternatively, the work stays hidden or lost for 200 years. Someone discovers it in the 19th Century and it comes into Joseph’s hands. 

There’s no need to add fanciful details in order to ridicule the theory. You are simply ridiculing a straw man of your own invention. 

[Lagrange]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I remember an advertisement in my small town newspaper for a Saturday Sermon given at a nearby church about Joseph Smith and his MasonicIlluminatiTemplarOccult, or something. I had no idea what any of those words meant, but the next Monday at school was sure interesting.

ROFL

Been there done that!

[EdGoble]

On 3/2/2018 at 12:21 PM, JarMan said:

You are making unwarranted assumptions. There doesn’t need to be a conspiracy. The 17th Century prophet simply hides away or destroys the work. Nobody on earth knows anything about it for almost 200 years until an angel comes and tells Joseph about it. Then he transmits the work using the seer stone. 

Alternatively, the work stays hidden or lost for 200 years. Someone discovers it in the 19th Century and it comes into Joseph’s hands. 

There’s no need to add fanciful details in order to ridicule the theory. You are simply ridiculing a straw man of your own invention. 

Any way you slice it, the notion itself becomes fanciful to bring a hidden, mortal prophet that we don't know of.  It needs no straw man to be fanciful in itself.  It unnecessarily complicates the story of the origin of the book.  It isn't faith promoting.  It implies that Joseph is disingenuous.  It implies that there is a hidden prophet in the mix that we don't know about that Joseph lied about.

My question is, why is anyone assuming that Moroni did not know English himself, and did not learn it naturally over time that he was watching the events unfold in America as a dead person, before his resurrection?  He did in fact talk to Joseph Smith in English when he would appear to him as a resurrected being.  There is no need to assume that there is anyone else in the mix except for Moroni.  So your hidden prophet is probably in fact Moroni himself, and Joseph Smith was channeling Moroni's own words in the English language as they were given to Joseph Smith.  There is no need for another mortal in the mix here at all, and we already know that Moroni is involved.

[JarMan]

5 hours ago, EdGoble said:

Any way you slice it, the notion itself becomes fanciful to bring a hidden, mortal prophet that we don't know of.  It needs no straw man to be fanciful in itself.  It unnecessarily complicates the story of the origin of the book.  It isn't faith promoting.  It implies that Joseph is disingenuous.  It implies that there is a hidden prophet in the mix that we don't know about that Joseph lied about.

My question is, why is anyone assuming that Moroni did not know English himself, and did not learn it naturally over time that he was watching the events unfold in America as a dead person, before his resurrection?  He did in fact talk to Joseph Smith in English when he would appear to him as a resurrected being.  There is no need to assume that there is anyone else in the mix except for Moroni.  So your hidden prophet is probably in fact Moroni himself, and Joseph Smith was channeling Moroni's own words in the English language as they were given to Joseph Smith.  There is no need for another mortal in the mix here at all, and we already know that Moroni is involved.

Look, I wish the official version for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon was the real version. I really do. But the evidence just doesn't support it. I also wish everything Joseph ever said concerning the supernatural was true. But the evidence doesn't support that either. And whether you think something is faith promoting or not has no bearing on the truth of the matter. Nor does your preference for how history ought to have unfolded have any effect on what actually happened. There is a 17th Century prophet in this story, but not because I want him to be there. And not because I "assume" him to be there. He is there because practically everything in the Book of Mormon points to him being there. If you want to challenge my assertion that the evidence clearly points to a 17th Century origin, then fine. But if you simply want to wish things happened the way you want them to have happened you're not going to get much traction. I've been down that road and it's a dead end.