Book of Mormon similarities with 1st Century Roman Empire

[JarMan]

58 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Recommendation considered and rejected.

Look, I can see you are dedicated to this and Grotius is a passion of yours and you really want there to be a connection but this is completely and utterly bonkers.

Your concept of causality is nuts. You are arguing that an ancient Roman conflict has parallels with a Book of Mormon account. Okay, but you present this as evidence Grotius wrote it because he knew of the Roman conflict. That implies Grotius changed that account to match what he knew. If the Book of Mormon account is accurate and not changed then his knowing of the Roman conflict is meaningless. There is no way to spin that as evidence of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. If anything it is evidence Grotius made it up. Same with the rest. If the Book of Mormon was tied entirely to what Grotius knew (which I do not concede) then this is a new Spaulding theory about how the Book is a fraud or a fictional morality tale. Yet you want to hold on to this theory and the idea that the Book of Mormon is an authentic historical account with this theory that suggests it is, in face, not. 

It is like suggesting the Lord of the Rings trilogy is definitely an authentic historical account because elements of it can be tied to what Tolkien believed and is based in things he knew about ancient history. It suggests the EXACT OPPOSITE!

First, I apologize for being grumpy. I don't think you are understanding my vision for how a systematic inquiry should work. I have a hypothesis that I want to test. So I go about gathering evidence that will either falsify my hypothesis or support it. When I find evidence that I think supports the hypothesis I present it for further scrutiny. The job of the skeptic is to look at the evidence and make an analysis about whether or not the purported evidence provides legitimate support for the hypothesis. Based on this feedback I can modify my hypothesis or abandon it if I think it is not producing results.

What you are doing is ignoring the evidence and, instead, pre-judging the merits of the hypothesis. And you are making the bizarre claim that the evidence I present is the basis for my hypothesis when it is actually something that is discovered through the process of investigating the hypothesis. In other words you have got cause and effect switched around.

To address the rest of your post, I would suggest (based on my experience on this board) that most faithful LDS who've looked really closely at the Book of Mormon believe there to be an expansionist element in the Book of Mormon. My model changes the identity of the "expansionist" from Joseph to Grotius or one of his associates. In addition, it stretches the scale of the expansion. I don't know the precise extent of this "stretching" since I don't know the actual events that occurred in America. But when I see correlations to Grotius I take that as being part of the expansion. Similarly, one way to look at almost the entire Pearl of Great Price and the JST is as an expansion, meaning that the events may not have occurred exactly as presented but the gospel truths are still true. I think many believers look at major portions of the Book of Genesis in a similar way. I'm willing to bet all the marbles that you do.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

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

It was a 19th century biblical fan fiction piece made by a person or persons who spoke the appalachian english dialect trying to sound old world biblical as part of a magician's trick to fool the masses?  Is it too much to say that maybe EmodE was inspired by a 1611 vintage bible Smith had?  Maybe his uncle from Dartmouth helped?  The Smiths/Macks were interested in religion and inventing a new religion might have been seen as a way to earn a living?  In any event, for me, disappearing dna bolsters Vogel's indian origins theory.  So, parsimony points to a 19th century creation.

You have the basic facts wrong, buddy.  No one in 19th century America (scholar or Appalachian bumpkin) knew Early Modern English.  It had died out at least 2 centuries before Joseph Smith.  Also the 1611 KJV simply does not contain the Early Modern English expressions scholars find in the Book of Mormon.  Occam's Razor only works when you have your premises right, and you don't even come close.  For a short and convenient list of those EModE features, see http://bookofmormonresources.blogspot.com/2015/03/english-in-book-of-mormon.html .

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

Let me re-present you with some historical evidence. It's up to you whether you continue to pretend it is not there or whether you want to examine it.

The Rights of War and Peace by Hugo Grotius

I've read this work and have made the claim that every aspect of warfare in the Book of Mormon in which the morality of that action is addressed, that same action can be found in Grotius' book with the same assessment of its morality. In another thread I discussed some of the specific comparisons, particularly a strong parallel with Alma 47.

The Education of a Christian Prince by Desiderius Erasmus

I've read this work and have made the claim that it presents a prototypical Christian Prince that is completely consistent with King Benjamin and, for the most part, Mosiah2. On the other hand, the anti-type is completely consistent with King Noah. This work influenced many other writers including William Tyndale, who wrote Obedience of the Christian Man. Part of Tyndale's work has a clear and direct connection to King Benjamin's speech in Mosiah 2 as I've demonstrated in another thread. In addition, Hugo Grotius produced a work called Of the Empire, or Authority of the Highest Powers about Sacred things, or, in matters of Religion that addresses many of the same issues of these other works. I am still working my way through this book. Grotius was heavily influenced by Erasmus on this topic and so far the two have been pretty consistent with each other. In addition to describing the prototypical and antitypical rulers, these works also address the proper relation between church and state. The role of government regarding matters of religion in the Book of Mormon is completely consistent with Erasmus' work, and as far as I have read, consistent with Grotius' book.

The Arminian Confession of 1621 by Simon Episcopius

This work summarizes the beliefs of the Arminians and very closely represents the doctrine of the Book of Mormon. It is certainly closer to the doctrine of the Book of Mormon than current LDS doctrine. There is a great body of other work describing Arminian beliefs. As may be expected it changes a little bit over time and from person to person. I believe that virtually all aspects of Book of Mormon doctrine can be found in these Arminian sources or other closely related, contemporary sources.

Burning of heretics: In another thread I showed that the practice of burning heretics in the Book of Mormon closely conforms in many separate details with the same practice in Eurasia between 1100 AD and the beginning of the 17th Century. The burning of heretics is only known to have occurred in all of human history in the time period mentioned above.

In one of the previous threads I showed how the government of the Netherlands in the late 16th/early 17th century is very similar to the Nephite government at the time of the judges.

In a previous thread I showed that the conflict between the Nephites and Zoramites has close parallels to the Armenian-Calvinist conflict of the early 17th Century. As a result of this conflict Grotius was sentenced to life in prison. He escaped after a couple of years and spent the rest of his life essentially in exile. This conflict actually had a political element, as well. The commander of the Dutch Army, Maurice of Orange, was looking to consolidate power and place himself as ruler of the Dutch Republic. He was actually successful in doing this by siding with the Calvinists in their religious debate with the Armenians. It was he that sentenced Grotius to life imprisonment while he executed Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, a leader of the Arminians and an old political opponent. The idea of a leader rising up to become a king therefore depriving the people of their freedoms is, of course, a common theme in the Book of Mormon...........................

As I have already suggested, I would like to see all of this (and more) written up by you in book form, with full documentation.  That way historians could make a careful assessment of your theory in refined form.

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

The job of the skeptic is to look at the evidence and make an analysis about whether or not the purported evidence provides legitimate support for the hypothesis. Based on this feedback I can modify my hypothesis or abandon it if I think it is not producing results.

One problem I see is that Grotius believed that Native Americans south of the narrow neck (which he identifies as Panama, not Tehuantepec) were Javanese and Chinese from the East Indies via a small strait between Mexico and Java. North of the narrow neck they came from Tartary over the Anian Straits and also from Scandanavia. He specifically rejected the idea of Jews or Israelites populating the Yucatan. For this reason, I find it doubtful that Grotius would write a book about Israelites in Mesoamerica.

Grotius himself places Israelites at Ophir on the Malay Peninsula, but does not take them farther than that. So although I think it possible Grotius would write a book about Israelites in the East Indies, but he seems to reject the idea that they made it as far as America.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

First, I apologize for being grumpy. I don't think you are understanding my vision for how a systematic inquiry should work. I have a hypothesis that I want to test. So I go about gathering evidence that will either falsify my hypothesis or support it. When I find evidence that I think supports the hypothesis I present it for further scrutiny. The job of the skeptic is to look at the evidence and make an analysis about whether or not the purported evidence provides legitimate support for the hypothesis. Based on this feedback I can modify my hypothesis or abandon it if I think it is not producing results.

What you are doing is ignoring the evidence and, instead, pre-judging the merits of the hypothesis. And you are making the bizarre claim that the evidence I present is the basis for my hypothesis when it is actually something that is discovered through the process of investigating the hypothesis. In other words you have got cause and effect switched around.

To address the rest of your post, I would suggest (based on my experience on this board) that most faithful LDS who've looked really closely at the Book of Mormon believe there to be an expansionist element in the Book of Mormon. My model changes the identity of the "expansionist" from Joseph to Grotius or one of his associates. In addition, it stretches the scale of the expansion. I don't know the precise extent of this "stretching" since I don't know the actual events that occurred in America. But when I see correlations to Grotius I take that as being part of the expansion. Similarly, one way to look at almost the entire Pearl of Great Price and the JST is as an expansion, meaning that the events may not have occurred exactly as presented but the gospel truths are still true. I think many believers look at major portions of the Book of Genesis in a similar way. I'm willing to bet all the marbles that you do.

You have presented some of your evidence and I pointed out much of your evidence supports the opposite conclusion. I recommend adjusting the hypothesis or (preferably) dumping it entirely. The logic does not work out even if you are right that the evidence suggests that Grotius was the writer and I do not concede that either.

I would suggest that this level of expansionism you suggest where whole wars and doctrinal views were imported based on what Grotius knew would render the Book of Mormon useless as a religious text and would make God a liar and an idiot for bothering to give it to us. There is also more than a touch of hubris in the idea that we did not know where the Book of Mormon came from for centuries and even the prophet who brought it forth did not know until you figured it out. This is like a lot of biblical criticism where it is discovered Jesus was completely misunderstood by everyone including his followers until some modern person finally figured it out. Except your idea is less plausible.

I am probably more fundamentalist about the Book of a Genesis than you would suspect.

 

[Rajah Manchou]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is also more than a touch of hubris in the idea that we did not know where the Book of Mormon came from for centuries

Pretty sure that after centuries we still don't know where the Book of Mormon came from.

[Exiled]

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

The problem with this is that my hypothesis cuts both ways. I could just as easily argue that the ties to Grotius and the 17th Century indicate the Book of Mormon is fictional. 

You're right, but there seems to be too many steps involved.  Why would God not just speak directly like he did in the D&C? Can you think of a logical reason why God would want all the additional steps in one work but not others? 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Pretty sure that after centuries we still don't know where the Book of Mormon came from.

I do.  

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, JarMan said:

This is true. 

The same could be said about the Book of Moses or D&C 7. 

But I'll give you an idea why I think someone would write a text like a Book of Mormon: because God inspired him to. Again, same as the Book of Moses and D&C 7.

The Book of Moses isn't an independent book but an inspired revision to Genesis commanded by revelation. At best you could argue Moses 1 is an unique book but I'd be cautious with even that interpretation. (Note Moses 1 was published separately from the other revisions to early Genesis chapters now in Moses) D&C 7 is a great example except that Joseph is clear it's a translation of such a book. We don't have any indication from Joseph's comments on the Book of Mormon there was an intermediate book. Joseph clearly felt that it was a translation of the gold plates and was explicit about that. That's hard to get around in a faithful manner.

So the only way to adopt the 17th century model you raise is if Joseph was fraudulently copying an existing work. But then we're back to why someone would write it and how Joseph got it.

[Rajah Manchou]

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I do.  

Let me guess. An ancient Native American Israelite carried them from Mexico to New York and buried them in a hill, and then returned 1400 years later as an angel, or possibly a bloody spaniard or a glittering salamander, or possibly a older gentleman with a monkey in a cage. In whatever form he came in, he led the young Joseph Smith to the plates buried in the hill. Soon after Joseph translated the plates by peering at rocks in a hat.

I can accept that, I don't think your nuts. Just trying to see how your version is more plausible than Jarman's suggestion that it was written by a European lawyer in the 16th century.

We're all a little nuts TBH

Edited January 3, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Let me guess. An ancient Native American Israelite carried them from Mexico to New York and buried them in a hill, and then returned 1400 years later as an angel, or possibly a bloody spaniard or a glittering salamander, or possibly a older gentleman with a monkey in a cage. In whatever form he came in, he led the young Joseph Smith to the plates buried in the hill. Soon after Joseph translated the plates by peering at rocks in a hat.

I can accept that, I don't think your nuts. Just trying to see how your version is more plausible than Jarman's suggestion that it was written by a European lawyer in the 16th century.

We're all a little nuts TBH

Make no mistake, I am nuts. My conception of the gospel is weird even by LDS standards.

It is not as nutty or irrational as JarMan’s theory where God makes a big deal about the Book of Mormon not coming from the learned while secretly having a Dutch lawyer do all the hard stuff.  

[Darren10]

Quote

 

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think what JarMan is suggesting is that the Book of Mormon plates are in Egyptian, and that the Latin used to make a translation at that time (17th century) was merely a first step:  That it was then rendered in a 17th century Early Modern English version, a language no longer existing in Joseph's day.  So Joseph merely read off that 17th century English version from the seersone.

If Joseph Smith "read off" an Early Modern English  [document] why would he need a seerstone in the first place? And when did he possess this Early English writings? Certainly not during the translation process. We have first hand accounts explicitly stating that Joseph Smith had nothing but a hat and a seerstone. Also, if the Book of Mormon was already written by the time Joseph Smith was born, why not just the it to the printing press and produce copies of the Book of Mormon? Why be instructed about the plates for a few years before gaining full possession of them and hide them constantly if there was already a document written in English of what was on those plates? Why take Egyptian characters to a professor to be authenticated if the translation was already done?

17 hours ago, JarMan said:

Think of the gold plates in terms of the Abraham papyri. It doesn’t matter what’s on them. They could contain Mayan funeral rituals. Or Mayan spells. They could be written in reformed Egyptian, Mayan, or be complete gibberish.

Maybe Joseph could have translated a Latin text to English. But the evidence suggests to me that it was transmitted rather than translated. And since it is in EModE an immediate translation in the 17th Century from the original Latin seems likely. An alternate hypothesis is that there never was a Latin text but that it was written originally in EModE. However, this actually creates more problems than it solves. 

Oh, I think it matters "What's on them". 

From the Book of Mormon introduction page: 

"The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

AND...

"After Mormon completed his writings, he delivered the account to his son Moroni, who added a few words of his own and hid up the plates in the Hill Cumorah. On September 21, 1823, the same Moroni, then a glorified, resurrected being, appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith and instructed him relative to the ancient record and its destined translation into the English language.

In due course the plates were delivered to Joseph Smith, who translated them by the gift and power of God. The record is now published in many languages as a new and additional witness that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that all who will come unto Him and obey the laws and ordinances of His gospel may be saved"

As I read this, the records of ancient civilizations were recorded on the plates and it was Joseph Smith who translated, not "transmitted", as you previously said, into English. If the translation of the plates was already made into English and "transmitted" to Joseph Smith, why did Joseph Smith *translate* the plates into English? 

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, and mind you that merely reflects JarMan's theory, which is only one among several.  What explanation would you apply to the Early Modern English quandary?  What seems more parsimonious?  Is it God's sense of humor?  Or is something else at play?  Is there an elegant and simple grand unifying theory?

It is curious as to why Early Modern English is in the Book of Mormon. I really don't know why other than its presence throws a major monkey wrench into plagiarism claims frequently made by critics.

And since Jarman's theory rests heavily on anacronisms I'd like to say that I am much more open to these supposed anachronisms being brought to the Americas through oceanic travel rather than the idea that the Book of Mormon already being written into English long before Joseph Smith was born. Why not, for example, the idea of fighting war was transmitted to the early Americas from European and Asians who voyaged there? I think pre-Columbian transoceanic travel is a much more plausible idea now than it has been before.

While I cannot accept Jarman's proposal I think it is worth exploring. 

Edited January 3, 2018 by Darren10

[Robert F. Smith]

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

If Joseph Smith "read off" an Early Modern English  [document] why would he need a seerztobe in the first place? And when did he possess this Early English writings?

Joseph needed a seerstone precisely because he did not have the EModE translation manuscript.  His scribes created that MS when Joseph read it to them off his stone.

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Certainly not sure g the translation process. We have first hand accounts explicitly stating that Joseph Smith had nothing but a hat and a seerstone. Also, if the Book of Mormon was already written by the time Joseph Smith was born, why not just the it to the printing press and produce copies of the Book of Mormon? Why be instructed about the plates for a few years before gaining full possession of them and hide them constantly if there was already a document written in English of what was on those plates? Why take Egyptian characters to a professor to be authenticated if the translation was already done?

The "Caractors" were taken to various learned men by Martin Harris in order to convince Harris that he should mortgage his farm in order to pay to publish the BofM.  He came back to Joseph a believer in the authenticity of those plates.

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

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

As I read this, the records of ancient civilizations were recorded on the plates and it was Joseph Smith who translated, not "transmitted", as you previously said, into English. If the translation of the plates was already made into English and "transmitted" to Joseph Smith, why did Joseph Smith *translate* the plates into English? 

Your use of the word "transmitted" is very much on target, since one of the meanings of "translate" is "transmit."  Joseph did not translate, so much as he transmitted an already English text to us via the seerstone..

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

It is curious as to why Early Modern English is in the Book of Mormon. I really don't know why other thsn its presence thriws a majir monjey wrench into pkagiarism claims frequently made by critics.

And since Jarman's theory rests heavily on anacronisms I'd like to say that I am much more open to these supposed anachronisms being brought to the Americas through oceanic travel rather than the idea that the Book of Mormon already being written into English long before Joseph Smith was born. Why not, for example, the idea of fighting war was transmitted to the early Americas from European and Asians who voyaged there? I think pre-Columbian transoceanic travel is a much more plausible idea now than it has been before.

While I cannot accept Jarman's proposal I think it is worth exploring. 

The only thing novel in JarMan's theory is the use of Latin by a Dutchman (Nederlander).  Otherwise the Early Modern English claim is solid.  We simply don't know why.

[Darren10]

56 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Joseph needed a seerstone precisely because he did not have the EModE translation manuscript.  His scribes created that MS when Joseph read it to them off his stone.

The "Caractors" were taken to various learned men by Martin Harris in order to convince Harris that he should mortgage his farm in order to pay to publish the BofM.  He came back to Joseph a believer in the authenticity of those plates.

Your use of the word "transmitted" is very much on target, since one of the meanings of "translate" is "transmit."  Joseph did not translate, so much as he transmitted an already English text to us via the seerstone..

The only thing novel in JarMan's theory is the use of Latin by a Dutchman (Nederlander).  Otherwise the Early Modern English claim is solid.  We simply don't know why.

I updated my very bad grammar (likely there is still some left)  just now but nothing in my post changed since you quoted it. 

Yes, I know Jarman's theory rests primarily on the presence of Early Modern English but it is backed up by anachronisms such as the type of war the Nephites fought in Alma. I say "heavily" backed up because I see far less plausibility for Jarman's theory without it. At least the Dutchman's inclusion of it. The anachronistic portion of his argument is much more acceptable to me via the idea that the idea of how to fight a war and even why was passed to the Americas via pre-Columbian transoceanic voyages. No 17th century Book of Mormon needed. 

I am open to Jarman's theory but why the Book of Mormon was pre-written into English before written again in that same English is bizarre. The notion that Joseph Smith needed a seerstone to write the Book of Mormon record into English because he did not have the already English translation is even more bizarre. Fascinating but bizarre. 

[JarMan]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I have already suggested, I would like to see all of this (and more) written up by you in book form, with full documentation.  That way historians could make a careful assessment of your theory in refined form.

If only I had the time. I'll be eligible for retirement in 10 years and 4 months (but who's counting?). There are lots of projects I'd like to work on then.

[JarMan]

12 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

One problem I see is that Grotius believed that Native Americans south of the narrow neck (which he identifies as Panama, not Tehuantepec) were Javanese and Chinese from the East Indies via a small strait between Mexico and Java. North of the narrow neck they came from Tartary over the Anian Straits and also from Scandanavia. He specifically rejected the idea of Jews or Israelites populating the Yucatan. For this reason, I find it doubtful that Grotius would write a book about Israelites in Mesoamerica.

Grotius himself places Israelites at Ophir on the Malay Peninsula, but does not take them farther than that. So although I think it possible Grotius would write a book about Israelites in the East Indies, but he seems to reject the idea that they made it as far as America.

Yes, I acknowledge this is a weakness of my hypothesis. However, let me offer a few "solutions."

1) It was an associate of Grotius, rather than Grotius, who wrote the original.

2) Grotius didn't really believe what he wrote in his paper. This is essentially the argument set forth in this paper. The writer is essentially claiming that Grotius' dissertation was political in nature and was meant to undermine the actions of Spain (who the Dutch were at war with) in the New World.

3) Although Grotius didn't believe the people of the New World were jews, he was still aware of the theory and used it because it was an effective and convenient literary device to convey his message. In other words, he was conscious that he wasn't writing history per se. 

[JarMan]

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

You're right, but there seems to be too many steps involved.  Why would God not just speak directly like he did in the D&C? Can you think of a logical reason why God would want all the additional steps in one work but not others? 

I answered this in a previous post. But let me just add here that, in general, any argument that involves suppositions about the reasons for God's actions is logically fallacious out of the gate. God clearly does not always act in a manner that people can understand.

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The Book of Moses isn't an independent book but an inspired revision to Genesis commanded by revelation. At best you could argue Moses 1 is an unique book but I'd be cautious with even that interpretation. (Note Moses 1 was published separately from the other revisions to early Genesis chapters now in Moses) D&C 7 is a great example except that Joseph is clear it's a translation of such a book. We don't have any indication from Joseph's comments on the Book of Mormon there was an intermediate book. Joseph clearly felt that it was a translation of the gold plates and was explicit about that. That's hard to get around in a faithful manner.

So the only way to adopt the 17th century model you raise is if Joseph was fraudulently copying an existing work. But then we're back to why someone would write it and how Joseph got it.

Joseph clearly thought he was translating the scrolls in his possession when he produced the Book of Abraham. And he clearly thought he was translating the gold plates in his possession when he produced the Book of Mormon. But he was wrong in both cases.

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

If Joseph Smith "read off" an Early Modern English  [document] why would he need a seerstone in the first place? And when did he possess this Early English writings? Certainly not during the translation process. We have first hand accounts explicitly stating that Joseph Smith had nothing but a hat and a seerstone. Also, if the Book of Mormon was already written by the time Joseph Smith was born, why not just the it to the printing press and produce copies of the Book of Mormon? Why be instructed about the plates for a few years before gaining full possession of them and hide them constantly if there was already a document written in English of what was on those plates? Why take Egyptian characters to a professor to be authenticated if the translation was already done?

Joseph never had possession of the EModE document. Thus he needed the seer stone to transmit what was on it.

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Oh, I think it matters "What's on them". 

From the Book of Mormon introduction page: 

"The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

AND...

"After Mormon completed his writings, he delivered the account to his son Moroni, who added a few words of his own and hid up the plates in the Hill Cumorah. On September 21, 1823, the same Moroni, then a glorified, resurrected being, appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith and instructed him relative to the ancient record and its destined translation into the English language.

In due course the plates were delivered to Joseph Smith, who translated them by the gift and power of God. The record is now published in many languages as a new and additional witness that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that all who will come unto Him and obey the laws and ordinances of His gospel may be saved"

From the Introduction to Abraham:

Quote

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

It doesn't matter what was on the papyri and it doesn't matter what was on the gold plates.

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

And since Jarman's theory rests heavily on anacronisms I'd like to say that I am much more open to these supposed anachronisms being brought to the Americas through oceanic travel rather than the idea that the Book of Mormon already being written into English long before Joseph Smith was born. Why not, for example, the idea of fighting war was transmitted to the early Americas from European and Asians who voyaged there? I think pre-Columbian transoceanic travel is a much more plausible idea now than it has been before.

My theory doesn't rest on anachronisms, per se, but they are a part of the whole. The problem is that the kind of anachronisms I see can't possibly have been transmitted across the ocean. For example, the Nephites don't conduct war like ancient Jews. In the OT we sometimes see them completely destroying the people they are fighting including women, children, and even animals. The moral justification is that God commanded it and that which God commands is moral. The only time I can think of that justification in the Book of Mormon is with the killing of Laban. And it is offered as an extreme and rare case. The Nephites conduct war according to an ethic that was unknown in ancient Israel. God never has occasion to command the Nephites to completely destroy their enemies. They fight defensive wars only and show restraint, often letting prisoners free and never enslaving them. In the OT it was a given that prisoners of war became slaves. As I've mentioned earlier, this war ethic or right of war is the subject of Grotius' most famous work. And the Nephites follow Grotius perfectly instead of the patterns of ancient Israel which is what we would expect.

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

While I cannot accept Jarman's proposal I think it is worth exploring. 

Thanks for keeping an open mind.

[clarkgoble]

43 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Joseph clearly thought he was translating the scrolls in his possession when he produced the Book of Abraham. And he clearly thought he was translating the gold plates in his possession when he produced the Book of Mormon. But he was wrong in both cases.

I think there's a big difference between the two in that he wasn't told he was translating the papyri so far as we know. (I'd add that I think you're too hastily dismissing the missing papyri theory as well - although that's somewhat beside the point) With the gold plates he was explicitly told he was translating them. What you are saying is that the plates are largely meaningless. What was the point of them then? It requires a fair bit of lying by Moroni for your model.

[Exiled]

53 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I answered this in a previous post. But let me just add here that, in general, any argument that involves suppositions about the reasons for God's actions is logically fallacious out of the gate. God clearly does not always act in a manner that people can understand.

Yet you do just that when you claim that God is behind the book of mormon.  Surely, claiming God brought it forth as part of a restoration involves suppositions about the reasons for God's actions, yet not fallacious out of the gate?  Further still, isn't the very claim of an inspired book of mormon a supposition as to God acting and wouldn't that be logically fallacious?  Maybe you, yourself do not understand?  Also, where does studying it out in our mind end?  When one asks why?  Is that not allowed? Or only when one is questioning certain theories?

Even so, God is not here so we are left to guess as to what was done and why, if God was even part of it in the first place.  Would you not be subject to the same defenses if I claimed that God created mormonism as a "wrong road" test to see if his children could sift through the illogical reasoning behind it and come to their senses?  If you said to yourself that surely God doesn't act that way .....  

[JarMan]

34 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think there's a big difference between the two in that he wasn't told he was translating the papyri so far as we know. (I'd add that I think you're too hastily dismissing the missing papyri theory as well - although that's somewhat beside the point) With the gold plates he was explicitly told he was translating them. What you are saying is that the plates are largely meaningless. What was the point of them then? It requires a fair bit of lying by Moroni for your model.

We don’t know what the angel told Joseph. We only know his account of the experience many years after the fact. And it’s pretty clear to me that account has quite a bit of expansion. Plus, how do you suppose it is that Joseph came to believe he had the writings of Abraham? At any rate, my theory doesn’t preclude the idea that what was on the plates was actually meaningful. But it doesn’t require it either. 

[JarMan]

28 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Yet you do just that when you claim that God is behind the book of mormon.  Surely, claiming God brought it forth as part of a restoration involves suppositions about the reasons for God's actions, yet not fallacious out of the gate?  Further still, isn't the very claim of an inspired book of mormon a supposition as to God acting and wouldn't that be logically fallacious?  Maybe you, yourself do not understand?  Also, where does studying it out in our mind end?  When one asks why?  Is that not allowed? Or only when one is questioning certain theories?

Even so, God is not here so we are left to guess as to what was done and why, if God was even part of it in the first place.  Would you not be subject to the same defenses if I claimed that God created mormonism as a "wrong road" test to see if his children could sift through the illogical reasoning behind it and come to their senses?  If you said to yourself that surely God doesn't act that way .....  

You were making an argument from incredulity. Just because you don’t think God would act in a certain way does not mean that he doesn’t. 

[Exiled]

48 minutes ago, JarMan said:

You were making an argument from incredulity. Just because you don’t think God would act in a certain way does not mean that he doesn’t. 

Touche, but you claim that God acted in another way and that doesn't mean that he acted that way either.  You do the same thing in your speculations, but I don't think that is a problem.  Another one of my points is that God isn't around, his prophet is silent on the subject, and therefore, that forces us to speculate as to what He would or would not do in a given situation.  So, sure, it may or may not be the case but one should be able to assume that God, who created our brains would want us to use them and speculating about what He may or may not have done against a logical framework seems to be a useful exercise here. 

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

Touche, but you claim that God acted in another way and that doesn't mean that he acted that way either.  You do the same thing in your speculations, but I don't think that is a problem.  Another one of my points is that God isn't around, his prophet is silent on the subject, and therefore, that forces us to speculate as to what He would or would not do in a given situation.  So, sure, it may or may not be the case but one should be able to assume that God, who created our brains would want us to use them and speculating about what He may or may not have done against a logical framework seems to be a useful exercise here. 

Fair enough. I was actually making a much broader point than was probably evident by my post. Sometimes people will say things like I don’t think God cares what kind of underwear I wear or The god I believe in wouldn’t discriminate against person x. So it struck me as being a similar type of argument. Maybe that wasn’t a fair assessment on my part but that’s where I was coming from.