Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Joseph dictated them. We can agree on that, can't we? I don't think useful to speculate beyond that. But I persoanlly doubt any supernatural process was involved.

Ha, I see what you did there, touche.     

But in seriousness I can give a very naturalistic explanation for the BoM with Joseph producing it and dictating it.  Your version requires actual ancient plates and all kinds of forensic evidence to support it, not to mention explaining how Joseph was able to translate the plates without any training or experience in ancient languages.  

[EdGoble]

5 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

I realize that I am coming to this very late. My apologies. Let me add some clarification. The answer to the pile of unknowns in Mesoamerica is that there is still a lot to learn, and many unexcavated sites that will undoubtedly yield something important to our understanding of Mesoamerican cultures. We learn more every day.

The bigger question is the assumption behind "hiding Nephites." That assumes that there was something about the Nephites that would make them so culturally distinct that it would show in their physical remains. I known that many have assumed that position, and for a long time, LDS authors attempted to find assumed Hebrew culture in the New World (they, and lots of others, particularly in the 1800s). It is the wrong question.

Take, for example, the question of Nephite Christianity. Certainly it was explicit after Christ's appearance regardless of what we think it might have looked like before. In terms of cultural remains, how would it have been expressed? Everything we know to look for in art and architecture comes from a different place, and a time that had no connection to the Book of Mormon peoples. The iconography that developed around Christianity used available symbols, and often converted or adopted Greek conventions. None of those would be applicable. So what would New World Christian symbols look like so that we would recognize them when  we see them?

The problem isn't that Nephites are hiding. They are quite likely in plain site (which is what John E. Clark referenced when he said that we probably have Nephite artifacts in museums now). We simply have no model of what a Nephite house looked like that might have been different than a neighbors Lamanite house--or Maya house--or Mexica house. Even among modern peoples we call Maya, they don't use that collective designation, but see themselves in smaller units. We see them speaking Maya languages, but they only understand tzotzil, tzeltal, mam, quiche, etc. 

 

Precisely.  This is exactly like saying hypothetically after 10,000 years, for an archaeologist to try to find some structure that is distinctly "Mormon" among the artifacts of the  20th and 21st Century Americans, the Europeans, the Chinese, etc.  Mormons now are spread throughout the world.  It would be difficult to find a house of a Mormon among the Americans.  They are the same culture.  They are the same people.  Maybe if you say that you can find a house that has no wine bottles or cigarettes in it, that it is more likely to be Mormon, but just because you find a Book of Mormon in a house doesn't mean that the house was a Mormon house.

If you find a house of a Nephite, how do you know that it was the house of a Nephite versus the house of a different Native American that was not a Nephite?  By what marker will you distinguish it?  Let's say a guy named Helorum lived there, and you find his name written on a wall.  You wouldn't know how his name was pronounced in Nephite, because at best, you find the version of his name that is translated from Nephite to Mayan written on the wall.  Because he didn't speak reformed Egyptian or Hebrew.  He spoke ancient Mayan.  It was only the priests of his culture that maintained these ancient exotic languages, much like the priests of Catholicism preserved Latin.  While these languages anciently may have had an influence on Native American languages, which has been shown to be plausible, they long since stopped being the main language of the people when the Nephites and Lamanites were assimilated into the surrounding cultures.

[champatsch]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

1. How exhaustive has your research been with respect to other potential influencing material that could have contributed to Joseph using 17th century syntax and grammar.  

2.  How extensively have you searched for other examples of people in Joseph's world that may also blend KJV language into their writings and preaching.  Do we know if this is unique to the BoM.  

My work has been almost all on (1); I've only read and listened to other scholars' treatment of (2), such as Nick Frederick's research and some of Royal Skousen's work.  The Book of Mormon text is quite impressive in this regard, but I don't know that strict comparisons have been made.  It is called intertextuality by many, and blending by Royal, since a lot of it is seamlessly worked into Book of Mormon passages, and some of the King James language is used with novel application.  I have previously mentioned Moroni 10:30–31 here, and Royal's analysis of that and other passages will shortly appear in a section of The Nature of the Original Language (NOL), which should be published by late May 2018.

As for (1), I have studied the textual record, from 1475 to 1830, in relation to a number of constructions and phrases that have appeared to be syntactically interesting.  I have used the databases of EEBO, Google Books, ECCO, and LION.  In addition to conducting biblical comparisons, I have also compared the Book of Mormon to four pseudo-biblical texts, ranging in time from 1775 to 1816 (The Late War).  What I have found in the Book of Mormon is extensive archaism that surpasses that of the pseudo-biblicals.  Look for an article on this to appear a week from now.  Some items worth mentioning here are the following:

• The Book of Mormon has more "command X that X ..." syntax than any text I've examined, and I've considered tens of thousands, using the search capabilities of digital databases, some of which I've made.  This is archaic usage sporadically occurring in the King James Bible; it was very rare in the early 19c.  Caxton's Golden Legend (1483) comes the closest to the Book of Mormon in this regard.
• The Book of Mormon has more "cause X that X ..." syntax than any text I've seen (e.g. "the Lord did cause the serpents that they should pursue them no more, but that they should hedge up the way").  This uncommon, archaic construction is NOT in the King James Bible.  I've encountered about 30 of these total in the textual record, so far all before the year 1700 (I've looked for it in the late modern period a few times; if/when one is found, it will be rare).  Pseudo-biblical texts are strictly infinitival, meaning they don't even have the simple finite construction, "cause that X", which occurs only three times in the King James Bible.  Infinitival causative constructions are persistent and modern usage.  They dominate the textual record.  The Book of Mormon has 12 instances of the complex finite construction "cause X that X".
• Modal auxiliary usage in the Book of Mormon is heavy and archaic in character (such as should in the the above Ether 9:33 example).  As one example, shall is used as a modal auxiliary (not strictly as a future auxiliary) well beyond that of the King James Bible (e.g. at a much higher rate after the conjunction lest).  High usage levels of the modal auxiliary shall correspond to 16c usage—that is, usage rates of the modal auxiliary shall were highest in the 16c, diminishing noticeably in the 17c and into the late modern period.
• Currently we must go back to 1677 to find a text with the levels of "did <infinitive>" adjacency that the Book of Mormon has.  This past-tense syntax is chiefly 16c in character.  The four pseudo-biblical texts I have examined have a modern periphrastic did profile and very little "did <infinitive>" adjacency.
• The Book of Mormon employs a large amount of "save it were/be/was/is"—no other book comes close.  There is none of this in the King James Bible or in the pseudo-biblical texts.  This distinctive phraseology is primarily poetic or literary.  To date I have found only two examples of "save it were" before the Book of Mormon, and three of "save it was" (one by Tyndale).  Almost 10 instances total of "save it be" before the Book of Mormon are currently known, most of these by Scottish writers.  The two instances of "save it were" are Scottish as well.  This means that the 125 instances of "save it were/be" in the Book of Mormon can be thought of as older Scottish usage.  There are other potential Scotticisms in the text, such as the intransitive verb anger (3×).
• We have to go back to the 16c to find texts with the same level of usage of "the more part of X" that the Book of Mormon has (26×).  It also has the rare variants "a more part" and "the more parts" (3× total), as can be found almost exclusively in the 16c. More-part phraseology dates back to Middle English and it was in obsolescence by the late 17c.  Some late 19c revivalist usage is known.
• No text has as much "had spake" usage as the Book of Mormon (12×). This morphosyntax is characteristic of the 17c.  I have found three instances of "HAVE been spake" in the 17c, and currently none outside of the 17c.  The Book of Mormon has one, at Alma 6:8.  The Book of Mormon also has six examples of the uncommon phraseology "of which hath/has been spoken".  This was primarily a 17c usage, but also found in the 16c.  It is a singular impersonal expression, as shown by rare cases of the variant with the expletive: "of which it hath/has been spoken".
• Systematically, the present-tense verbal system of the Book of Mormon is a best fit with the Early Modern English period. The past-tense verbal system fits the 16c.  The perfect-tense verbal system fits the 17c. The future-tense verbal system may fit the late 16c. If we use inversion rates of the future auxiliaries will and shall with pronouns as a proxy (after the high-frequency adverb then), then that is the conclusion.  (This is a difficult area of study, since modal shall must be separated from future shall.  I haven't tagged the text yet.  All I've done is use the adverb then as way to isolate future shall, as in "then shall they").  This portion of the verbal system is similar to the 1568 Bishops' Bible in its inversion rates, and higher than the King James Bible.
• Some of the systematic tense data is closely replicated in some of the pseudo-biblical texts, such as a minor amount of 3sg present-tense {-s} usage varying with {-th} inflection, as well as future auxiliary inversion rates.  (The {-s} ~ {-th} inflectional variation is ubiquitous in the Early Modern English textual record, though only found in the 1611 King James Apocrypha.)  The pseudo-biblical texts show that these parts of the verbal system could have been successfully mimicked.  But some of the data is not closely replicated by the pseudo-biblical texts, such as periphrastic do and did and the {-th} plural and some of the past participle leveling.  These parts apparently resist mimicking, as do the items just mentioned.

These are off the top of my head.  There is much more that could be mentioned, but I will leave it here.

Potential cases of obsolete lexis and expressions are supported by the above.

Also, a large amount of the "bad grammar" of the earliest text does not readily qualify as Joseph's bad grammar (e.g. archaic "nor no manner of X" (4×)).

In short, one must admit very high levels of extra-biblical Early Modern English coincidence in order to accept Joseph as author or translator (in the sense of rendering ideas into words).

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

Precisely.  This is exactly like saying hypothetically after 10,000 years, for an archaeologist to try to find some structure that is distinctly "Mormon" among the artifacts of the  20th and 21st Century Americans, the Europeans, the Chinese, etc.  Mormons now are spread throughout the world.  It would be difficult to find a house of a Mormon among the Americans.  They are the same culture.  They are the same people.  Maybe if you say that you can find a house that has no wine bottles or cigarettes in it, that it is more likely to be Mormon, but just because you find a Book of Mormon in a house doesn't mean that the house was a Mormon house.

If you find a house of a Nephite, how do you know that it was the house of a Nephite versus the house of a different Native American that was not a Nephite?  By what marker will you distinguish it?  Let's say a guy named Helorum lived there, and you find his name written on a wall.  You wouldn't know how his name was pronounced in Nephite, because at best, you find the version of his name that is translated from Nephite to Mayan written on the wall.  Because he didn't speak reformed Egyptian or Hebrew.  He spoke ancient Mayan.  It was only the priests of his culture that maintained these ancient exotic languages, much like the priests of Catholicism preserved Latin.  While these languages anciently may have had an influence on Native American languages, which has been shown to be plausible, they long since stopped being the main language of the people when the Nephites and Lamanites were assimilated into the surrounding cultures.

The assumptions made here include this ideas that the text doesn't support, it never explicitly says that the BoM people are a minority people that existed in a much larger culture.  The early church leaders never made any statements that I'm aware of that support this idea (they made many statements to the contrary, that support a hemisphere populated exclusively by the BoM people, including Joseph Smith.)  

Lastly, there are many examples of small groups of people that have been discovered within other larger cultures all around the world, whether the Norse settlement that Brant mentioned earlier, or have you heard of the Lemba tribe in Zimbabwe that some DNA evidence may support a Middle Eastern ancestry for this tribe.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemba_people

The theory that was created out of necessity by LDS apologists to support the lack of evidence for BoM historicity is this theory that of course we can't find any evidence to support the BoM peoples directly, and we actually shouldn't expect to find any evidence because ______.  Fill in the blank.  Rather than try to argue like this, why not accept the simplest explanation, that we don't have any evidence because the BoM is not a historical record at all, but rather a creation of Joseph Smith, divinely inspired for believers, but not specifically tied to any historical figures.  Remember the Brigham Young quote I shared earlier, as he even suggests this how he would view the BoM text, a very different work if translated a few decades later.  

Quote

Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation.

If you agree with Brigham, then you can't agree with the tight control model, because it can't differ materially and also be a literal translation of historical events.  

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

One of the issues I see with saying that we may be looking at Nephite artifacts without even knowing what they look like and, as you point out, we are not finding any Hebrew or Egyptian words that support a connection to Lehi, is that the text of the BoM itself tells us that 800 years after arriving here Moroni was still able to read and write in reformed Egyptian on metal plates. How would it be possible to pass on that type of education and technical skills for that long without leaving a trace?

Can we assume you are unaware that the Spanish destroyed virtually all written records from the pre-Classic time period.

These peoples knew how to carve in stone and, according to the BoM, knew how to leave records on metal plates.But for some reason they only wrote in Reformed Egyptian on metal plates but not in stone?

These were sacred records and used a specialized language to maintain those records.  The European Jews, fer example,  had the Bible in Hebrew but it was not their vernacular.  They did not have street signs, etc in Hebrew.

Frequently these literate historians were not only the religious leaders but the civil leaders as well. So it is hard to imagine them not using  Reformed Egyptian, a language described by Moroni as being much more space efficient than Hebrew for record keeping, to maintain their civil records as well.

I guess you have not read the Book of Mormon so let me help you.

Mormon 9 [34] But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

Certainly from what we know of the meso-American languages, reformed Egyptian would be a huge improvement in all areas of government wouldn't it?

 With your apparent expertise in Reformed Egyptian and the Nephite language, tell us specifically how it would be an  improvement over their language.  First, tell us what language they were using.

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by cdowis

[FormerLDS]

On 3/1/2018 at 1:46 PM, hope_for_things said:

Where did the Book of Mormon come from.  I constantly hear this idea argued from both apologetic and critical sides.  All in an attempt to explain how Joseph could have produced the Book of Mormon.  Yet, when it comes right down to it, both sides should be able to agree on some pretty basic historical facts from the evidence.  

• Joseph Smith dictated the content of the BoM to some scribes

Nearly everyone should be able to agree on that statement, and I think that really explains it in a nutshell.  I was thinking about other figures in history that are revered for things they produced.  Newton, Einstein, Beethoven, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, etc.  Do anyone else spend so much time asking where they came up with their masterpiece works?  Where did Einstein get that amazing theory of relativity?  Where did Michelangelo get that amazing statue of David.  How could they have possibly produced these things?  Where did they come from?  

I think we spend so much time looking for evidence, trying to find parallels, seeking to understand where the BoM came from, that we are missing the answer right in front of our faces and we should all be able to agree on.  The BoM came from Joseph Smith.  This is the clear and straightforward answer that both believers and nonbelievers should be able to agree on, and its the simple answer to a highly debated question.  

How Joseph Smith could possibly have created the Book of Mormon is beyond me, but if one did choose to rationalize it's existence that way, how did Joseph Smith also fabricate the burning in the bosom that so many millions (myself included) have experienced after prayerfully and sincerely reading the BoM and praying about it's truthfulness?

There's simply no way anyone can tell me the confirmational feelings that I felt within when I first started reading and praying about the BoM were fabricated by Joseph Smith.

One cannot simply ignore the fact that the BoM is a supernatural book. 

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

How Joseph Smith could possibly have created the Book of Mormon is beyond me, but if one did choose to rationalize it's existence that way, how did Joseph Smith also fabricate the burning in the bosom that so many millions (myself included) have experienced after prayerfully and sincerely reading the BoM and praying about it's truthfulness?

There's simply no way anyone can tell me the confirmational feelings that I felt within when I first started reading and praying about the BoM were fabricated by Joseph Smith.

One cannot simply ignore the fact that the BoM is a supernatural book. 

There are billions more who've felt similarly about their religious texts all over the world.  Do you think this experience is unique to Mormons?  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

These are off the top of my head.  There is much more that could be mentioned, but I will leave it here.

Potential cases of obsolete lexis and expressions are supported by the above.

Also, a large amount of the "bad grammar" of the earliest text does not readily qualify as Joseph's bad grammar (e.g. archaic "nor no manner of X" (4×)).

In short, one must admit very high levels of extra-biblical Early Modern English coincidence in order to accept Joseph as author or translator (in the sense of rendering ideas into words).

Thanks for your post and for the examples you've shared.  You certainly are doing detailed work.  This is where I'd like to see peer review from other qualified scholars.  I don't have access to the same data you have compiled, and I don't have expertise in evaluating grammar and syntax.  I expressed my skepticism, which I think is healthy and warranted.  

I do find it very difficult to believe that Joseph was producing something so unique that it can't be found in other texts.  It makes me wonder if there is a methodology problem and/or a data-set problem.  Lets say that all your findings prove to be true and that the BoM is a work completely out of time and place, that there are no other writings that exhibit the same kind of grammar and syntax that was produced by contemporaries, or even produced by Joseph himself in other writings, then I think these findings would be very noteworthy and could potentially require a re-evaluation of how the BoM was created in the first place.  So I'm not lost on the implications of what these findings mean.  I think the burden of proof should be very very high though.  

[cdowis]

53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The theory that was created out of necessity by LDS apologists to support the lack of evidence for BoM historicity is this theory that of course we can't find any evidence to support the BoM peoples directly,

Shrug.

I guess it depends on what you consider as "evidence".  Your bold statement "lack of evidence" is, of course, simply a  personal opinion, perhaps partially based on ignorance as well as personal issues.

For me, evidence, "yes", proof, "no".

Edited March 8, 2018 by cdowis

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Shrug.

I guess it depends on what you consider as "evidence".  Your bold statement "lack of evidence" is, of course, simply a  personal opinion, perhaps partially based on ignorance as well as personal issues.

For me, evidence, "yes", proof, "no".

I was speaking specifically of more objective scholarly evaluated evidence.  Personal evidences like spiritual witness and subjective forms of evidence are perfectly fine and acceptable, but are very different kinds of evidence.   

[CV75]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Brant said it is likely these objects have been found and are in museums.  Your arguments about Europeans destroying all of it or the introduction of Christianity by those Europeans is different.  Competent archaeological digs can correct for those elements you bring up anyway.  

I have no knowledge about Mayan or any of the things you claim that symbol represents.  Find me a non-Mormon scholar of Mayan that confirms your interpretation and I'll start taking you seriously, otherwise I'm going to chalk this attempt up with all the other erroneous claims that have been made in the past.  

Your question was, “Can you explain why we shouldn't expect to find Hebrew culture or Hebrew words or Egyptian words or anything that would directly support a connection to a group migrating from 600 B.C.E. Jerusalem?” I just gave you the answer – the conquistadors -- and you’re balking! LOL. I wasn’t suggesting they destroyed all the objects, but they destroyed the indigenous culture enough to thwart your expectations.

Some of the early friars spotted the similarities between Mayan religion and Catholicism and you can easily look these up online. There were enough differences also by the 16th century, however, to create problems with expecting to settle on any connection.

The “Pop” symbol is found in more than just museums, but in situ (or close) on stelae and other archaeological objects in many Central American national parks. So Europeans did not destroy all of it (I wasn't saying that);  my point is that their impact on the indigenous peoples certainly muddied the waters for anyone trying to interpret the religious meaning of such symbols. Not only would you need a non-Mormon scholar of Mayan, but of Hebrew culture as well, throwing yet another wrench in your expectations!

The similarities between the Pop glyph, its translation and use, and Hebrew traditions are rather easy to spot. But don’t expect to find them, because as I said, “…we only see what we're looking for, right?” That further compounds the problem of your expectations.

So many unmet expectations!

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

Early Modern English doesn't represent a problem for a 19th century date, since it predates the 19th century (ie it's not anachronistic). Assuming it's been identified correctly (given the small group of researchers working on this relatively new theory, I withhold judgement for now), the next question is how did it get there. An earlier translator or angelic help are not required to explain its presence (and of course the second idea wouldn't be a historical explanation anyway).

I think that you are incorrect there, as to presenting a problem. It presents a problem because it was not part of Joseph Smith's speech or writing patterns nor has it been identified in any part of his environment. The number of researchers working on the matter, (not a theory)is irrelevant to whether the Early Modern English is in the Book of Mormon or not. Stanford Carmack has identified many words and phrases which can very easily be verified by anyone who wishes and has listed documents and texts that he has researched in following up on Royal Skousen's initial discovery of the EmodE in the Book of Mormon. If you have an alternative explanation from personal knowledge, training, etc. I would be glad to hear it. (Actually angelic help would be a historical explanation. Several witnesses claimed to have seen an angel in connection with the Book of Mormon production. It may not be an explanation that most would accept, though.)

 

Edited to add: Stanford (champatsch) has a pretty solid explanation in a previous post. Check it out. 

Glenn

Edited March 8, 2018 by Glenn101
addition

[Rajah Manchou]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Ha, I see what you did there, touche.     

But in seriousness I can give a very naturalistic explanation for the BoM with Joseph producing it and dictating it.  Your version requires actual ancient plates and all kinds of forensic evidence to support it, not to mention explaining how Joseph was able to translate the plates without any training or experience in ancient languages.  

My version doesn't require actual ancient plates anymore than yours does. I accept there could have been ancient plates, but I also accept it more likely to have come from Joseph's subconscious imagination. But that's where we both fail. 

Once a believer in 19th century authorship like you, I've since discovered that the Book of Mormon account matches the real world location most often associated with the Rechabites, or Rahmans. The timing of civilizations is the same. Many of the names and toponyms are the same. The geography is the same. I've shown how every anachronism in the Book of Mormon, from domesticated elephants to horses, from iron swords to silk, is resolved. Wheat is tricky, but I think it can be resolved. I've also explained how Joseph could have known. But we can discuss that later.

Now the burden is on you to explain how Joseph could have written a book that so perfectly conforms with a historical civilization (the ancient Kumr or Khmer) that Joseph knew nothing about. Explain how authentic ancient Rechabite texts seem to describe that same civilization, but weren't published into English until 1890, are so similar to the Book of Mormon. 

How do you explain it? And no fair being lazy and saying, "coincidence". Or that you're just not interested enough in the topic to explain. That's how you seem to escape every problem your theory doesn't resolve. : )

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The assumptions made here include this ideas that the text doesn't support, it never explicitly says that the BoM people are a minority people that existed in a much larger culture.

And yet throughout their entire history, they are able to go out and find people to preach to who don't already share their beliefs. This is exactly the kind of evidence I used in writing my PhD thesis to argue that Christians were never more than a minority in the populations in my research area. If it's good enough for a PhD thesis that was passed unanimously with no need for revision, then it should be a good enough approach to the Book of Mormon text.

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

have you heard of the Lemba tribe in Zimbabwe that some DNA evidence may support a Middle Eastern ancestry for this tribe. 

The theory that was created out of necessity by LDS apologists to support the lack of evidence for BoM historicity is this theory that of course we can't find any evidence to support the BoM peoples directly, and we actually shouldn't expect to find any evidence because   the Book of Mormon people were more like the Lemba of Comoro then they are like the Maya of Guatemala  .  Fill in the blank. 

See my comment above for a summary that partially explains how the Lemba (genetically similar to the Comorans) are culturally related to the Kumr (Khmer). Michael Coe proposes a cultural link between the Khmer and the Maya dating back to the Preclassic period, which is also the Book of Mormon timeframe. 

Edited March 9, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I was speaking specifically of more objective scholarly evaluated evidence. 

Please give us a list of objective scholars who have read the Book of Mormon and studied its text scientifically.  For that matter, give us a list of professional journals who have expressed a willingness to publish such research on a book delivered by an angel.

Have made this request several times and only a deep silence.

[Brant Gardner]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks again for the detailed response.  If Joseph was faithful to what he read, I'm still not seeing how he could have blended what he read into the current events of his time and place.  If there is a basic story about a family crossing the oceans and coming to America, and they were led by God in this process.  If that is the basic outline of a story, or idea, I can see how Joseph would take that story and creatively imagine specific details as they relate to his experiences in life, blending in elements from his family relationships and current events in a creative merging of the basic story with specific details.  But that seems to fall apart if you are tied to specific wording being faithful.  Where would the original story and the expanded details from Joseph's life begin and end?  

Is this just speculation, or do you have a system where you attempt to support this with evidence.  Without having access to the plates or the writings on them, I don't see how this claim could be evaluated through scholarly inquiry.

 

I have detailed all of this in my Gift and Power book. Message boards just can't do arguments like this any justice. So you get the watered-down, quick version.

As for evidence, yes, I believe that there is evidence. Of course, some of that evidence depends upon some assumptions--such as that there was a text to be translated. That means that we are still a long ways from handing anything to non-Mormons for their judgement, since they begin from a very different perspective.

[Brant Gardner]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

We've found archeological evidence of that very small and isolated Norse settlement, and its clearly Norse.  The corollary is that we haven't found any evidence for Hebrew settlements anywhere.  Also this Norse settlement didn't last long, and was extremely small compared to the numbers described in the BoM that lasted over 1000 years for the Lehites and even longer for the Jaredites.   

I knew someone would bring that up. Everything is complicated, and examples for one thing may not be applicable to another. The problem with the Norse material is that they stayed separate and never attempted to blend in. Therefore, they build up their own location. The place is not heavily populated, so the original settlement wasn't destroyed by having others build on top of it, as happens in more continuously populated areas. In the region where I believe the people with Lehi landed, there were at least 6 known hamlets in the foothills with around a thousand people each. I don't think the Lehites ever had the luxury of being along or even thinking of creating their own separate community.

Quote

But when Jesus visits the Nephites he shows them the marks in his hands and feet and explains what happened to him.  Perhaps that piece could still be lost, the emphasis on the cross, but the language in 3 Nephi seems to emphasize it somewhat.  

This is an interesting event that Mark Wright noticed. In the Old World, the order of demonstration is hands, then the wound in the side. That is reversed in the New World. The reason is that in the Old World, the risen Jesus was obviously  alive, and had to show that he was the very one that they knew had died--hence the hands. In the New World, they had never known Jesus as a dead man. What they saw before them was clearly a divine, living being. What was important in the New World was to show that he had died. The marks in the hands wouldn't have been fatal (by themselves, and without a clear knowledge of crucifixion with nails, it would make no sense). However, the would in the side would be known to be fatal. Hence that one first, to prove he had died.

Quote

I agree that Christianity borrowed much from other cultures, this is very clear.  Someone descending from heaven really wouldn't be uniquely christian or even uniquely religious necessarily.  I just think we ought to find something that could uniquely connect the two worlds.  There seem to be more similarities between Buddhism and Christianity than Mesoamerican religions and Christianity from what I can see, and I don't think anyone is proposing that Buddhism and Christianity derive from the same core theological beliefs.  The thing is, the BoM contains all the evolved theology from centuries of Christian thought, yet we can't find evidence for any of it in Mesoamerica. 

Connections are very hard to make. I think there are some compelling connections between Mesoamerican and Southeast Asia--but I can't find good evidence to make the connections more than tantalizing. I think there was a much large immigration from some of those countries, with enough people and early enough that cultural data were influenced. But I still can't find a way to make it demonstrable, and if you ask any secular Mesoamericanist, the best you would get is maybe but not demonstrated. Most would simply say it didn't happen.

Everyone says that the Book of Mormon has evolved Christian thought--and then assumes that all of that thought had human origins and had nothing to do with divine influence. If there is divine influence, then the arc of Christianity ought to be roughly similar. Many of the conflicts that are seen to be "modern" are ones that I see fitting in to the context of surrounding Mesoamerican ideas. What I see in the Book of Mormon is that similar cultural stimuli produced similar results in the development of both Judaic and Christian beliefs. When those stimuli were earlier in the Book of Mormon, the similar resolutions occurred earlier. When that is capped with the language of the translation being influenced by Christian vocabulary, you get a modern-shifted picture of what was a more natural process in the actual history.

Quote

But what about the language?  They had Hebrew and Egyptian.  No evidence for any of it or anything that might represent an evolution of language that had its roots in those languages. 

Mesoamerican has not been kind to language. Until the fantastic discovery of the murals at San Bartolo, there was no Maya script for early Book of Mormon times. Now we know there was one. The difference is that the early texts were painted, not carved. The carved texts remained. Painted texts are mostly gone (and San Bartolo confirms that they were there). So part of the language problem in that area of the world is perishability. Even if there were thousands of Hebrew texts, if they were painted on stone or on paper, the odds of survival are incredibly slim. So why don't we have indications of that language? First, Hebrew and Egyptian were likely scholarly languages, not daily spoken languages (general language acquisition suggests that). Then, what was written (as apparently were most writings among the Maya) were either perishable materials, or perishable paint on imperishable media. It just didn't survive, and that lack of survival is not amazing. It would be survival that is amazing (hence the excitement over San Bartolo).

[strappinglad]

I am reminded of a conversation when a man was asked what he wanted in a spouse. He gave a long list of requirements and expectations he needed. When asked what he brought to the table his response was " I'm clever and that's enough!"

Replace the word clever with skeptical .

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, EdGoble said:

Precisely.  This is exactly like saying hypothetically after 10,000 years, for an archaeologist to try to find some structure that is distinctly "Mormon" among the artifacts of the  20th and 21st Century Americans, the Europeans, the Chinese, etc.  Mormons now are spread throughout the world.  It would be difficult to find a house of a Mormon among the Americans.  They are the same culture.  They are the same people.  Maybe if you say that you can find a house that has no wine bottles or cigarettes in it, that it is more likely to be Mormon, but just because you find a Book of Mormon in a house doesn't mean that the house was a Mormon house.

Actually there are distinctive artifacts which might be used ten thousand years hence to identify Mormon households -- CTR rings, Christus statuary, Moroni symbols, lack of the cross in LDS chapels and temples, etc.  Reminds me of a scifi story I read years ago about archeologists from somewhere else in the galaxy coming to a dead Earth and excavating to discover who had once lived here:  Curiously, they found sites with a structure-in-common worldwide, always associated with a large arch-logo, the largest such logo apparently being centrally located near a great river in the midst of an ancient great continental area.  These alien archeologists concluded that this was evidence of a widespread religious cult, called for convenience "The Archees," with headquarters at the Great Arch in a place with inscriptions identifying it as ST LOUIS.

5 hours ago, EdGoble said:

If you find a house of a Nephite, how do you know that it was the house of a Nephite versus the house of a different Native American that was not a Nephite?  By what marker will you distinguish it?  Let's say a guy named Helorum lived there, and you find his name written on a wall.  You wouldn't know how his name was pronounced in Nephite, because at best, you find the version of his name that is translated from Nephite to Mayan written on the wall.  Because he didn't speak reformed Egyptian or Hebrew.  He spoke ancient Mayan.  It was only the priests of his culture that maintained these ancient exotic languages, much like the priests of Catholicism preserved Latin.  While these languages anciently may have had an influence on Native American languages, which has been shown to be plausible, they long since stopped being the main language of the people when the Nephites and Lamanites were assimilated into the surrounding cultures.

What you might do is look at the Greek port settlement of Helorum in Sicily, and speculate that the name came from a crew-member accompanying Mulek to the New World in a Phoenician craft.

Since there is no reason for the Nephites to have used any Mayan, you would be more interested in the native languages of the Chiapas depression in southern Mexico.  However, the Lamanites likely had extensive contact with the Maya.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The assumptions made here include this ideas that the text doesn't support, it never explicitly says that the BoM people are a minority people that existed in a much larger culture.  The early church leaders never made any statements that I'm aware of that support this idea (they made many statements to the contrary, that support a hemisphere populated exclusively by the BoM people, including Joseph Smith.)  

This is generally true, and Joseph Smith was as ignorant of the true geography of the BofM as any of us seeing it through unsophisticated eyes.  Many of us made those same hemisphere-wide assumptions, without ever reflecting upon it at all.  An Early Modern English text got published in 1830, and a lot of people complained about the bad grammar of it, and about the preposterous nature of the story.  Believers made childish and absurd assumptions about it which did not match reality.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Lastly, there are many examples of small groups of people that have been discovered within other larger cultures all around the world, whether the Norse settlement that Brant mentioned earlier, or have you heard of the Lemba tribe in Zimbabwe that some DNA evidence may support a Middle Eastern ancestry for this tribe.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemba_people .

Cf. Professor Tudor Parfitts’ (University of London) research on DNA markers of Kohanim (priests) within the Buba subclan of the Lemba tribe of Venda, South Africa (they claim to be Jews and to have originated in Sena – clearly Yemeni Sena in the Wadi Masila of the Hadramaut).  If a Bantu-speaking tribe can be traced genetically, then why not Lamanites?

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The theory that was created out of necessity by LDS apologists to support the lack of evidence for BoM historicity is this theory that of course we can't find any evidence to support the BoM peoples directly, and we actually shouldn't expect to find any evidence because ______.  Fill in the blank.

Professional anthropologists who just happened to be Mormon began looking at the textual and archeological evidence already in the 1940s, and realized that past assumptions had been wrong -- not only about the nature of BofM geography, due to the very short distances described in the book itself, but also about the nature of New World cultures.  It was logic, not apologetics which drove those professionals to conclude that there was only one place in the Americas where BofM civilization (Jaredite, Nephite, and Mulekite) could have existed, and that was in Mesoamerica.  Why?  Because that was the only place in which a literate, high culture existed in the New world.  The only place where adequate population was available.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

  Rather than try to argue like this, why not accept the simplest explanation, that we don't have any evidence because the BoM is not a historical record at all, but rather a creation of Joseph Smith, divinely inspired for believers, but not specifically tied to any historical figures.

For those scholars, that was "the simplest explanation," dictated by the law of parsimony, and it provided lots of corroborative evidence, as Brant Gardner and John Sorenson have pointed out at great length.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

  Remember the Brigham Young quote I shared earlier, as he even suggests this how he would view the BoM text, a very different work if translated a few decades later.  

If you agree with Brigham, then you can't agree with the tight control model, because it can't differ materially and also be a literal translation of historical events.  

Brigham was reflecting on the fact that changes in language would make any updated translation by someone in his day read differently than the 1830 version -- which had been edited and updated in any case, a practice which has continued into the present.  The substance of the book would remain the same, but the language and style would be different.  We see this regularly in modern translations of the Bible.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

How Joseph Smith could possibly have created the Book of Mormon is beyond me, but if one did choose to rationalize it's existence that way, how did Joseph Smith also fabricate the burning in the bosom that so many millions (myself included) have experienced after prayerfully and sincerely reading the BoM and praying about it's truthfulness?

There's simply no way anyone can tell me the confirmational feelings that I felt within when I first started reading and praying about the BoM were fabricated by Joseph Smith.

One cannot simply ignore the fact that the BoM is a supernatural book. 

It is precisely out of fear of those "feelings' you describe that Protestants generally eschew dependence on the Holy Spirit, and are not very  kind in their descriptions of the Pentecostals (or Mormons).  In so doing, Protestants have abandoned the most important power in Christianity.

[Meerkat]

14 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

My version doesn't require actual ancient plates anymore than yours does. I accept there could have been ancient plates, but I also accept it more likely to have come from Joseph's subconscious imagination. But that's where we both fail. 
 

Unless I've missed it here, I'm a little puzzled why the existence of three reputable witnesses who saw the ancient plates presented by the angel, and heard the voice of God, and the other eight witnesses are not part of this discussion.  Witnesses help establish the truth in a court of law.  Why not here?  Also, how about the number of people who have put Moroni's promise to the test and were convinced by God it is true.  Then, based on that knowledge, found their lives being transformed by the teachings of Jesus Christ, and his prophets and apostles.  The fruits that converts embrace and live are more convincing to me than the opinions of skeptics.  (I'm not saying you or Hope For Things are skeptics.  It's a very interesting and reasonable conversation.)  But, interesting as it is, the idea of personal revelation seems to take a back to several theories.  And yet the way to know, from the New Testament [Matthew 7] and the Book of Mormon, [Moroni 10,] is through revelation.)  I believe a person needs to want to know, and sincerely pray for specific answers from God, then work hard until the answer comes.  If personal revelation is ignored, I believe it will mean no more to the skeptics than the open tomb did to the Jews.  No offense intended, just expressing my opinion.  And I may have missed some comments that addressed this.  If so, disregard.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

I agree that Christianity borrowed much from other cultures, this is very clear.  Someone descending from heaven really wouldn't be uniquely christian or even uniquely religious necessarily.  I just think we ought to find something that could uniquely connect the two worlds.  There seem to be more similarities between Buddhism and Christianity than Mesoamerican religions and Christianity from what I can see, and I don't think anyone is proposing that Buddhism and Christianity derive from the same core theological beliefs.  The thing is, the BoM contains all the evolved theology from centuries of Christian thought, yet we can't find evidence for any of it in Mesoamerica.

A search of native pre-Columbian documents, iconography, and traditions provides some striking instances of the existence of practices and beliefs which are surprisingly congruent with aspects of Christianity.  For example, slaughter of an innocent animal (or human) and the sharing of its flesh are central to Judeo-Christian and Mesoamerican tradition.*  Even if not specifically Christian, Michael Graulich found compelling evidence of Paradise Lost & Regained, along with Death, Rebirth, and Reward or Punishment in Mesoamerican tradition.**  Miller & Farriss argue that “there is enough resemblance between the symbolism and dogma of the two cults to help account for the receptivity to Christianity on the East Coast and elsewhere.”#  Willey & Hammond summarized the research conclusions of Arthur Miller and Nancy Farriss as follows: 

Quote

   They argue that Christian beliefs and iconography were not, at least in the Maya way of thinking, completely incompatible with old native beliefs and that the syncretistic results came not from bewilderment or misunderstanding but from an intellectual attempt on the part of the Maya to synthesize the old and the new (cf. J. E. S. Thompson 1970).##

* Nancy M. Farriss, “Sacrifice and Communion in Colonial Maya Religion,” Abstracts of Papers of the 44th International Congress of Americanists, Manchester, England, 1982 (Manchester Univ., School of Geography, 1982), 15, cited in Sorenson & Raish, F-016B.  Cf. T-171.  Miller & Farriss in Hammond & Willey, Maya Archaeology & Ethnohistory, 239, on resurrection.  

** Graulich, “Afterlife in Ancient Mexican Thought,” in Bruno Illius and Matthias Laubscher, eds., Circumpacifica: I, Mittel- und Südamerika: Festschrift für Thomas S. Barthel (Frankfort: Peter Lang, 1990), 165-188, cited in Sorenson & Raish, G-195B.  Richard De Long notes that the ca. 100 A.D. Pre-Classic murals of San Bartolo, east of El Mirador, have images of birth, death, and resurrection (with the Maize-god), and he suggests comparison with the Popol Vuh.  See Allen J. Christenson, Popol Vuh: The Sacred Book of the Maya, 2 vols. (London: O Books, 2003-2004).

# Miller & Farriss in Hammond & Willey, Maya Archaeology & Ethnohistory, 240. 

##  “Introduction,” to Hammond & Willey, Maya Archaeology & Ethnohistory, xvi.

Quote

But what about the language?  They had Hebrew and Egyptian.  No evidence for any of it or anything that might represent an evolution of language that had its roots in those languages.    

Linguistics expert, John S. Robertson examines the work of Brian Stubbs -- “Exploring Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan Languages,” Interpreter, 25 (2017): 103-116, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/exploring-semitic-and-egyptian-in-uto-aztecan-languages/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mormoninterpreter+(Interpreter%3A+A+Journal+of+Mormon+Scripture+(RSS)) .

I present the case for both Semitic & Egyptian in a set of Mesoamerican languages in Oaxaca State, Mexico, in my “*Sawi-Zaa,” 2016 version 3, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/56696298/SAWI-ZAA .  Taken from initial work done by non-Mormon scholars Morris Swadesh and his students beginning in the 1960s.

A couple of papers presented in 1992 by the late non-Mormon linguistics scholar Mary LeCron Foster, "Old World Language in the Americas," parts 1 & 2, bolster my presentation of the Sawi-Zaa evidence by arguing that "Specifically, the Mixe-Zoque languages of southern Mexico, hypothesized to derive from the language spoken by the Olmec peoples, as well as the Mayan languages of Mexico and Central America, are demonstrably closely related to, and probably descended from, ancient Egyptian."  Copies of her papers are in the Archives of the Bancroft Library at UC Berkeley. 

Edited March 9, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Rajah Manchou]

45 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

Unless I've missed it here, I'm a little puzzled why the existence of three reputable witnesses who saw the ancient plates presented by the angel, and heard the voice of God, and the other eight witnesses are not part of this discussion.  Witnesses help establish the truth in a court of law.  Why not here?  Also, how about the number of people who have put Moroni's promise to the test and were convinced by God it is true.  Then, based on that knowledge, found their lives being transformed by the teachings of Jesus Christ, and his prophets and apostles.  The fruits that converts embrace and live are more convincing to me than the opinions of skeptics.  (I'm not saying you or Hope For Things are skeptics.  It's a very interesting and reasonable conversation.)  But, interesting as it is, the idea of personal revelation seems to take a back to several theories.  And yet the way to know, from the New Testament [Matthew 7] and the Book of Mormon, [Moroni 10,] is through revelation.)  I believe a person needs to want to know, and sincerely pray for specific answers from God, then work hard until the answer comes.  If personal revelation is ignored, I believe it will mean no more to the skeptics than the open tomb did to the Jews.  No offense intended, just expressing my opinion.  And I may have missed some comments that addressed this.  If so, disregard.

It will be such a great day when someone responds to the larger case I'm trying to make for a historical Book of Mormon. At times I feel like the things I type out disappear on your screens as soon as I hit Submit.

But in response, I fully rely on personal revelation to explain how Joseph, his scribes, and the witnesses participated in the production of the Book of Mormon. I think the entire process was personal revelation. Hope for Things might call that imagination while others call it translation or transmission. I have't followed the discussion about how it was all done or not done. I am more interested in the text and the clues it reveals.

I don't think that anyone has a bulletproof explanation for the plates, and that doesn't trouble me too much. The plates weren't opened or used during the dictation, so I suppose they weren't needed for the personal revelation/imagination/dictation/transmission, or whatever you want to call it.