Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

[Rajah Manchou]

9 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think anyone is proposing that Buddhism and Christianity derive from the same core theological beliefs. 

There are entire books written on this topic.

One of the more common theories leading up to the publication of the Book of Mormon was that Buddha (or Xaca) was an Egyptian/Jewish/Zoroastrian priest or brahmin who, in two separate transmissions (one after the tower and another after the capture of Egypt by Cambyses in the 6th century BC) spread his hybrid Egyptian religion across Asia and into America.

Many people, including Athanasius Kircher, believed the Indians of both the East and West Indies practiced an Egyptian religion that had the same core theological beliefs as Christianity and Judaism. All three religions, and their hieroglyphic systems in Egypt, China and Mesoamerica, derived from the same antediluvian source: Adam, Seth and Enoch. The Book of Mormon fits nicely into this 17th and 18th century theological worldview.
 

Edited March 9, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[JarMan]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

All the evidence that we have today supports that Joseph dictated the text, all the witnesses.  

Skousen and Carmack agree that Joseph dictated the text.

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

So when someone comes along with a theory that Joseph was not the source of the EmodE content 

Being the source of the text is different from dictating it. There is no contradiction here.

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

and that Joseph couldn't possibly have produced it using the skills and resources that Joseph had, when we already know that Joseph dictated the text

Again, dictating a text is not the same as being the source of the text. Just because I read a text out loud doesn't mean I produced the text. I don't know how you can't see the obvious difference here.

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

then the people floating this theory are setting an extremely high bar to prove this theory.  

They would essentially need to try and eliminate every other possible influencing factor that could explain how this EmodE content shows up in the BoM.  This is a much different task than trying to find influencing factors on particular items.  I can't think of an example of this approach in any of the other scholarly disciplines, if anyone can think of an example, I'm open to hearing it.  The burden of trying to eliminate all other possible influences to state with certainty that nothing could have influenced something in a natural way, is such a high burden with respect to historiography, I'm not sure its ever been attempted before.  

I apologize for being hard on you here, but this is just so completely off base, nonsensical and illogical. Everyone admits Joseph dictated the text. Dictation simply means speaking out loud to a scribe. The question is what was he dictating. Was he making things up as he went along ("freestyling") like you would when telling a child a bedtime story? (If I understand you correctly, this seems to be your theory, but please correct me if I am wrong.) Was he reading something, either from the seer stone or some hidden manuscript? (This is the Skousen/Carmack view as well as my own.) Was he repeating something he had previously memorized? Was he saying something that God had put into his mind in some way such that he had to "translate" it into his own words which then appeared on the seer stone which he then read? (Apologies to Brant but this is my one sentence description of my understanding of his view.) Out of all these theories, yours is by far the least likely based on the evidence since your theory doesn't describe Joseph reading anything. The blocky nature of the dictated text suggests he was reading something, not freestyling. The identification of the text as EModE is completely consistent with the theory that Joseph was reading something. It doesn't overturn anything. It just describes the nature of the thing he was reading. And you still have not told us what evidence you are relying on that suggests Joseph was freestyling. I know you have put a lot of time and effort into this thread and, honestly, I'm not trying to be uncharitable, but you've got a ways to go to even explain the basis of your theory.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Skousen and Carmack agree that Joseph dictated the text.

Being the source of the text is different from dictating it. There is no contradiction here.

Again, dictating a text is not the same as being the source of the text. Just because I read a text out loud doesn't mean I produced the text. I don't know how you can't see the obvious difference here.

.................................. Everyone admits Joseph dictated the text. Dictation simply means speaking out loud to a scribe. The question is what was he dictating. Was he making things up as he went along ("freestyling") like you would when telling a child a bedtime story? (If I understand you correctly, this seems to be your theory, but please correct me if I am wrong.) Was he reading something, either from the seer stone or some hidden manuscript? (This is the Skousen/Carmack view as well as my own.) Was he repeating something he had previously memorized? Was he saying something that God had put into his mind in some way such that he had to "translate" it into his own words which then appeared on the seer stone which he then read? (Apologies to Brant but this is my one sentence description of my understanding of his view.) Out of all these theories, yours is by far the least likely based on the evidence since your theory doesn't describe Joseph reading anything. The blocky nature of the dictated text suggests he was reading something, not freestyling. The identification of the text as EModE is completely consistent with the theory that Joseph was reading something. It doesn't overturn anything. It just describes the nature of the thing he was reading. And you still have not told us what evidence you are relying on that suggests Joseph was freestyling. I know you have put a lot of time and effort into this thread and, honestly, I'm not trying to be uncharitable, but you've got a ways to go to even explain the basis of your theory.

Correct, JarMan.

Skousen's careful study of the MSS evidence now for over 30 years indicates without question that Joseph had been dictating an already extant text to his scribes.  Indeed, the mistakes made by the scribes are only of the sort one would make while copying a directly dictated text, and not of something being invented on the fly (freestyling).  However, the Early Modern English text throws us all a curve, and I have no credible explanation for it.

[Meerkat]

16 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct, JarMan.

Skousen's careful study of the MSS evidence now for over 30 years indicates without question that Joseph had been dictating an already extant text to his scribes.  Indeed, the mistakes made by the scribes are only of the sort one would make while copying a directly dictated text, and not of something being invented on the fly (freestyling).  However, the Early Modern English text throws us all a curve, and I have no credible explanation for it.

If your theory is accurate, please present your rationale for Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith and the three witnesses and showing them the plates, as indicated in their signed statement and lifelong witness: "...we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens."  That is a fantastic statement.  Who, in their right mind, would sign a statement like that and persist throughout their lives in confirming it again and again?

The last bolded statement in that paragraph would be a prayer that any Christian could understand.  I believe we all want to be faithful in Christ.  If it were a fraud (and I know you aren't saying it was,) I believe they would have admitted it in this life.  But for Joseph Smith and all the witnesses to say they know the Book was translated from the plates, if it weren't true, that would undermine the integrity of the whole project, in my opinion.  That seems extremely out of character for Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ AND the Holy Ghost that testifies of it's truth.  How do you reconcile that issue with your theory?

Add to that the testimony of the eight witnesses: " Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety... And we lie not, God bearing witness of it."  And God does bear witness of it.  Why would He do that if it weren't actually as represented in the three and eight witnesses' testimony?  I'm a little puzzled here. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Meerkat said:

If your theory is accurate, please present your rationale for Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith and the three witnesses and showing them the plates, as indicated in their signed statement and lifelong witness: "...we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens."  That is a fantastic statement.  Who, in their right mind, would sign a statement like that and persist throughout their lives in confirming it again and again?

The last bolded statement in that paragraph would be a prayer that any Christian could understand.  I believe we all want to be faithful in Christ.  If it were a fraud (and I know you aren't saying it was,) I believe they would have admitted it in this life.  But for Joseph Smith and all the witnesses to say they know the Book was translated from the plates, if it weren't true, that would undermine the integrity of the whole project, in my opinion.  That seems extremely out of character for Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ AND the Holy Ghost that testifies of it's truth.  How do you reconcile that issue with your theory?

Add to that the testimony of the eight witnesses: " Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety... And we lie not, God bearing witness of it."  And God does bear witness of it.  Why would He do that if it weren't actually as represented in the three and eight witnesses' testimony?  I'm a little puzzled here. 

You've got me puzzled too, Meerkat.  Not sure why you are quoting the witnesses to the plates, and then asking me how I can reconcile that with "my theory."  The notion of dictation by Joseph to his scribes is not my theory, but rather settled fact, and that does in no way call into question the testimony of the witnesses.  When they testify that Joseph is the translator,  they are merely observing that he transmitted (translated) the document to the scribes.  They do not describe the mechanics of it at all, although others do say that Joseph used a stone in his hat in order to read his dictation.  Joseph himself (who could not make a scholarly translation of the plates) merely claims that he did it by the gift and power of God.

Perhaps you could clarify what you think the problem is.

[cdowis]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

However, the Early Modern English text throws us all a curve, and I have no credible explanation for it.

I think you have stumbled upon the explanation -==  within the context of "Joseph Smith, etc, is the author" theory, it indeed makes no sense. 
And that is precisely the point.

REVISED The solution to the puzzle is the puzzle itself.

Edited March 9, 2018 by cdowis

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You've got me puzzled too, Meerkat.  Not sure why you are quoting the witnesses to the plates, and then asking me how I can reconcile that with "my theory."  The notion of dictation by Joseph to his scribes is not my theory, but rather settled fact, and that does in no way call into question the testimony of the witnesses.  When they testify that Joseph is the translator,  they are merely observing that he transmitted (translated) the document to the scribes.  They do not describe the mechanics of it at all, although others do say that Joseph used a stone in his hat in order to read his dictation.  Joseph himself (who could not make a scholarly translation of the plates) merely claims that he did it by the gift and power of God.

Perhaps you could clarify what you think the problem is.

Okay.  Fair enough.  I agree with what you have said here.  And I can see that part of my confusion was that I was reading a JarMan response to Hope for Things thinking it was to you.  It seemed to me as if someone was attributing Joseph dictating a pre-written manuscript compiled from Carlson and other sources (since Joseph apparently wasn't sophisticated enough to write it himself.) 

Now I see you were talking about Joseph dictating as he was translating, possibly from the plates, possibly with the aid of a seer stone.  That is my understanding also, which is admittedly pretty basic.  I haven't studied much of the research you all are referring to in this thread. I probably should to get up to speed.  

I do know that this is a true book that proports to be translated by Joseph Smith.  A pre-written manuscript in early English read, rather than just handed to the scribe or scribes, doesn't seem reasonable to me.  If the circumstances were other than Joseph said they were, how was he able to find so many witnesses to verify he had the gold plates, of ancient appearance, the angel, the voice of God, etc.?  And the wisdom in it's pages are far beyond a twenty four year old young man's ability to postulate, imo.  Add to that sending out missionaries, city building, continuing revelation, my own testimony.  Joseph Smith was a miracle man, in my opinion.

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

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!

I disagree with your evaluation of events, but I'm not denying that those events happened.  For example, I don't believe the Spanish could have destroyed all evidence, and neither does Brant as he said it is likely that BoM artifacts have been found and are in museums.  Which makes my question about Hebrew connections still relevant.  

The early Europeans that visited this continent were biased towards finding similarities between their culture and the new culture they observed.  I'm not aware of any of these statements that hold up to serious scholarship or scrutiny.  If you can point out an observation from an early friar that you think has merit, maybe we could do a little searching to see if that observation stands up to critical analysis.  

When you make a statement like "we only see what we're looking for", it makes me think that you believe there there is no scientific way to get to the bottom of these questions.  That I completely disagree with.  Subjective religious experience is one method of evaluation that is relevant to your statement about seeing what we're looking for, but scholarly appraisal of empirical evidence is a different kind of evaluation that can be peer reviewed and tested in a methodical way.  Don't get confused by the complexities happening and just throw up your hands and say that everyone's opinion is of equal validity because this whole thing is so complicated.  

 

[hope_for_things]

15 hours 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. 

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. : )

Rajah,

If something comes from Joseph's subconscious imagination, but accurately reflects historical events, then isn't that by definition supernatural?  

Also, I've read many of your posts in recent years, but I haven't really dug into the Rechabites model you're constructing.  It strikes me that your approach is backwards though.  Like you've found some loose parallels and are now looking for additional evidence to support your model.  This isn't how the scientific method is supposed to work from my perspective, and you're bias towards finding confirming evidence to support your specific model, I believe will cloud your judgment.  

Now I'm saying all that without actually digging into your evidence so I'll admit that I'm not being entirely fair minded, and for that I apologize in advance.  

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

I believe you're confusing two very different things.  The people that missionaries in the BoM preach to, all have an explanatory history behind where they came from in the BoM narrative.  There aren't any unknown people that just appear out of nowhere that text doesn't go to lengths to explain where they come from.  These groups need to be preached to because they fell away from the true faith or rebelled or lost their records.  They weren't always a minority either, the 3 Nephi narrative says that all the non believers were either destroyed or converted when Christ came.  

I don't see how your thesis that Christians were a minority religion in the old world, has any direct application to the BoM narrative.  

[stemelbow]

21 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

It is difficult to answer the question simply, because I don't think it is a simple answer. I described the process in Gift and Power, and it took pages. The very short, and very unsatisfying answer is that vision occurs in the brain, not in the eyes. We typically see as a result of light coming through the eyes, but actually seeing happens when the brain interprets that light. As a doctor friend of mine recently told me, if you cover an eye of a baby for long enough, they will be blind in that eye, even though the eye itself functions properly. What happened was that during the time when the brain should have been developing its ability to interpret light into sight in that region of the brain, it didn't have the input--and then it eventually stops that process.

The next thing is that we are able to see at times without light. The most obvious is dreaming. We see in our dreams, but we aren't using our eyes. There is one case I found of an anthropologist experimenting with a crystal ball. Most people saw nothing, others saw different things. One girl saw a paper with writing on it that was so real to her that she turned the ball over to see if the paper was on the other side. I think that is where the words on the rock came from. They did not originate on the rock, but in Joseph's mind, and the specific words came from the normal way language is generated from existing meaning. 

Thank you for bearing with me a bit and answering.  That is very nice of you.  As I worked out yesterday I relistened to part of your interview on Mormon stories.  I'd agree with John when he says, you seem to have one of the best perspectives on all of this.  the most credible sounding to me.  

So, my question is, did the translation and dictation happen simultaneously on this view?  It's as if Joseph in mind/spirit was taken elsewhere almost like when he was visited by Moroni in the bedroom with his siblings.  He was a bit elsewhere but his words were heard by the scribe still, because he was still there.  If so, that'd be really difficult to understand unless you saw it, I guess.  

21 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

Next question: "do you think we can safely assume that the resulting English text represents what was on the plates." I think that we can safely assume that structure, content, and basic meaning was accurately translated from the plates. I would be very cautious about specific words, because that is precisely where there would be the greatest variability. However, poetic structures can be show to have survived. I have been working on larger structural elements which have a discernible internal logic that is so foreign to modern assumptions that when Orson Pratt made new chapters in 1879 he "fixed" some weird chapter breaks because he didn't understand the ancient trigger that created the original break. So--yes, I think we can be confident that the translated Book of Mormon represents the plate text in those things that were most important.

hmmm...I'm having a hard time seeing the connection here.  If Joseph was translating something, in his mind's eye, how can we know that that something was even on the plates at all?  You seem pretty confident that it was, but I can't see a reason to think that.  It could just as well be he was translating words someone else was speaking to him and then dictating those.  The plates didn't seem to factor into the translation according to witnesses.

Also, I hate to reask, but I'm really curious, how does the presence of EModE elements fit into your theory?  

 

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, cdowis said:

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.

I don't remember you directing a request like this at me before, but your request probably has come up with silence because its a poorly constructed request.  First, I'm not well read enough on Mormon studies to construct a list of all the relevant scholarship on this subject.  Second, what kind of scientific evaluation do you think is relevant here, there are many different disciplines that may or may not apply. 

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

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.

I've own your Gift and the Power, but read it a couple years ago, I should go back and brush up on these specifics.  

As for the evidence that could match up what might have been on plates with the text we have, can you give any references to where you've discussed that, and the assumptions that you'd make to try and construct a model for evaluation.  If this is a work in process still, maybe an essay or presentation where you've talked about some of the ideas.  Thanks

[CV75]

44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I disagree with your evaluation of events, but I'm not denying that those events happened.  For example, I don't believe the Spanish could have destroyed all evidence, and neither does Brant as he said it is likely that BoM artifacts have been found and are in museums.  Which makes my question about Hebrew connections still relevant.  

The early Europeans that visited this continent were biased towards finding similarities between their culture and the new culture they observed.  I'm not aware of any of these statements that hold up to serious scholarship or scrutiny.  If you can point out an observation from an early friar that you think has merit, maybe we could do a little searching to see if that observation stands up to critical analysis.  

When you make a statement like "we only see what we're looking for", it makes me think that you believe there there is no scientific way to get to the bottom of these questions.  That I completely disagree with.  Subjective religious experience is one method of evaluation that is relevant to your statement about seeing what we're looking for, but scholarly appraisal of empirical evidence is a different kind of evaluation that can be peer reviewed and tested in a methodical way.  Don't get confused by the complexities happening and just throw up your hands and say that everyone's opinion is of equal validity because this whole thing is so complicated.  

 

Oh my… I didn’t say they destroyed all evidence / artifacts (note that I’m finding it necessary to explain this a second time!). They destroyed the descendants of those familiar with the evidence / artifacts (and the symbols on them) 1,000 years after the time they were to have been destroyed as a culture, and 600 years after the last stelae were made. We’re missing a cultural Rosetta Stone. At least the Norsemen of L'Anse aux Meadows were not so far removed temporally and culturally from the discoverers of that site. Relating to your expectations, this is one reason (I listed others) why recognizing empirical evidence for Hebraisms among the Maya is currently unlikely. It’s all about the science (disciplined, technologically-assisted subjectivity) and what to realistically expect before the right discoveries are made!

Many scholarly comparisons have been made among the world religions (ever take a course?), including Mayan and Christianity; these too can be easily found online.

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

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.

Its a real uphill battle to try and explain why no direct and explicit evidence has been found.  I have to applaud the creativity on some level.  

14 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

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.

Perhaps interesting, but this strikes me as an irrelevant coincidence.  

14 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

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.

Divine influence can't be tested and evaluated.  Their are also some uniquely Mormon theological problems with this idea that those beliefs were the result of divine influence, because the correlated Mormon assumptions are that Mormon theology was present in a pure form when Jesus was on the earth and that it was later corrupted and lost its purity.  Historical evidence shows that those ideas were the result of an evolution of thought during what Mormons think was years of darkness in the apostasy.  

This is also similar with respect to how the early Christians reinterpreted their Hebrew Bible to read prophesies of Jesus back into that text.  

For all of the above we have abundant evidence to show how these things happen, the biblical historical critical scholarship is very compelling.  My studies around biblical criticism inform my understanding of the evolution of the Christian movement.  So when you imply that an appeal to divine influence can just tidy up all these things, I don't see how that's possible when I look at all the evidence.  

 

[CA Steve]

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I disagree with your evaluation of events, but I'm not denying that those events happened.  For example, I don't believe the Spanish could have destroyed all evidence, and neither does Brant as he said it is likely that BoM artifacts have been found and are in museums.  Which makes my question about Hebrew connections still relevant.  

 

Obviously the conquistadors were far better than our modern archaeologist at finding artifacts in  past and present civilization, some of which we could not find until we used areal photography, even though we were within a few hundred yards of them.  I am sure when we start unearthing the recently discovered Guatemalan city(ies) what we will find in those building and tombs will be just be graffiti like "Hernán estaba agui" or  "Ponce usa ropa de su mama`", even though they had been abandoned 600 years before Columbus.  These amazing conquistadors were able to go through every existing city and every long  dead city and destroy every recognizable BoM artifact. They were also smart enough to not destroy any BoM artifacts they somehow knew we could not recognize as BoM artifacts.

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

This one always boggles my mind when I hear it.  Joseph is the prophet, the author of the BoM, the revelation machine that believers privilege above all others.  He's larger than life, and yet when something he says doesn't fit the most recent apologetic arguments, they dismiss the incompatible statements and call him ignorant. 

If you're willing to call Joseph's paradigm about the BoM peoples ignorant and not matching reality, why not take that one step further and just conclude that the BoM isn't historical.  Seems obvious to me.  

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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?

I agree, it seems like if there was any DNA evidence to support middle eastern ancestry for Native American's that we should see some evidence of this in the DNA record. 

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Yes, they were wrong, because there isn't any historical antecedent for the BoM narrative.  Its not that they were looking in the wrong place, its that no place exists.  

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Brigham uses the words "very different" and "differ materially", I think he goes further than your interpretation of his meaning.  I think he's acknowledging that the BoM narrative was a creative imagination by Joseph at some level.  I think he probably believed the book was based on some historical facts, but that much of the content came from an inspired creative process that Joseph engaged in.  That's my interpretation.  

[Rajah Manchou]

20 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

If something comes from Joseph's subconscious imagination, but accurately reflects historical events, then isn't that by definition supernatural?  

Not at all. For example, next time the word Rechabite comes up in a conversation, do you think your subconscious might pull up certain images and memories based on our discussions here? Would that color your understanding of the topic? Of history? 

Now imagine living in a small town in New York in the middle of one of the most intense religious awakenings in human history. New religions are literally being conjured up around you. Friends and relatives are departing on missions to strange new lands. Some weird guy named Luman who is familiar with all the occult fads in France is running around town telling everybody you are going to find a golden book some day! Even your father boasts to his friends that he intends to “procure a stone for you to see all over the world with”. Now what kind of things will your subconscious imagination by capable of? Do you think you'd be able to recall all those Lost Tribe legends you heard your father recite over the years? Who knows, maybe some old timer named Moroni sits down on a log with you and tells you about his people back home in Old Europe and their fantastic beliefs found in their books about Rahmans who left Jerusalem for an island in 600 BC. 

What I am saying is I don't know where the content of the Book of Mormon came from. There are a billion different scenarios and we will likely never piece it all together. But looking at the text, it appears to me that the Book of Mormon narrative is far more complex than even LDS scholars allow for. Its definitely not as easily explained as you make it sound.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

I apologize for being hard on you here, but this is just so completely off base, nonsensical and illogical. Everyone admits Joseph dictated the text. Dictation simply means speaking out loud to a scribe. The question is what was he dictating. Was he making things up as he went along ("freestyling") like you would when telling a child a bedtime story? (If I understand you correctly, this seems to be your theory, but please correct me if I am wrong.) Was he reading something, either from the seer stone or some hidden manuscript? (This is the Skousen/Carmack view as well as my own.) Was he repeating something he had previously memorized? Was he saying something that God had put into his mind in some way such that he had to "translate" it into his own words which then appeared on the seer stone which he then read? (Apologies to Brant but this is my one sentence description of my understanding of his view.) Out of all these theories, yours is by far the least likely based on the evidence since your theory doesn't describe Joseph reading anything. The blocky nature of the dictated text suggests he was reading something, not freestyling. The identification of the text as EModE is completely consistent with the theory that Joseph was reading something. It doesn't overturn anything. It just describes the nature of the thing he was reading. And you still have not told us what evidence you are relying on that suggests Joseph was freestyling. I know you have put a lot of time and effort into this thread and, honestly, I'm not trying to be uncharitable, but you've got a ways to go to even explain the basis of your theory.

I think you just misunderstand what I'm saying.  I understand that Joseph could have memorized or practiced the story out ahead of time.  I also understand that he could have been very good at free-styling, and personally that is what I think he was.  Some people believe it was a form of automatic writing, or something similar.  I don't have a problem believing that, there are some witness statements from other revelations that he may have gone into a meditative state of some kind.  I have cited other works in recent threads of people who were able to produce highly complex and internally consistent narratives similar in complexity to the BoM.  If you're interested, see Richard Van Wagoner's book, Natural Born Seer, as he has a few very interesting examples.  

The key thing I think you missed in that post you quoted is that those promoting the EmodE theory have a huge burden to prove what they are suggesting.  They are suggesting that Joseph couldn't possibly have been the source of the EmodE content.  If their thesis stopped at just presenting evidence that EmodE is present in the text, then I wouldn't have much of a problem.  But instead, they're trying to prove that Joseph couldn't have been the source of that EmodE content by trying to eliminate all other potential sources that could have influenced Joseph's grammar and syntax to create EmodE content.  I don't think this task is even possible to accomplish, its essentially trying to prove a negative and the evidence to support it needs to be overwhelming.  

 

[CA Steve]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The key thing I think you missed in that post you quoted is that those promoting the EmodE theory have a huge burden to prove what they are suggesting.  They are suggesting that Joseph couldn't possibly have been the source of the EmodE content.  If their thesis stopped at just presenting evidence that EmodE is present in the text, then I wouldn't have much of a problem.  But instead, they're trying to prove that Joseph couldn't have been the source of that EmodE content by trying to eliminate all other potential sources that could have influenced Joseph's grammar and syntax to create EmodE content.  I don't think this task is even possible to accomplish, its essentially trying to prove a negative and the evidence to support it needs to be overwhelming.  

 

If you think that task is hard just think how difficult it is for those claiming that the conquistadors destroyed all recognizable BoM artifacts throughout all of the Americas.

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Not at all. For example, next time the word Rechabite comes up in a conversation, do you think your subconscious might pull up certain images and memories based on our discussions here? Would that color your understanding of the topic? Of history? 

Now imagine living in a small town in New York in the middle of one of the most intense religious awakenings in human history. New religions are literally being conjured up around you. Friends and relatives are departing on missions to strange new lands. Some weird guy named Luman who is familiar with all the occult fads in France is running around town telling everybody you are going to find a golden book some day! Even your father boasts to his friends that he intends to “procure a stone for you to see all over the world with”. Now what kind of things will your subconscious imagination by capable of? Do you think you'd be able to recall all those Lost Tribe legends you heard your father recite over the years? Who knows, maybe some old timer named Moroni sits down on a log with you and tells you about his people back home in Old Europe and their fantastic beliefs found in their books about Rahmans who left Jerusalem for an island in 600 BC. 

What I am saying is I don't know where the content of the Book of Mormon came from. There are a billion different scenarios and we will likely never piece it all together. But looking at the text, it appears to me that the Book of Mormon narrative is far more complex than even LDS scholars allow for. Its definitely not as easily explained as you make it sound.

Your thought experiment is exactly what I imagine Joseph did, he was very good at incorporating ideas found in his environment in creative ways.  We also know there were many contemporaries who thought Native American's were ancient Hebrews and part of the twelve tribes of Israel. So if you're saying that Joseph may have heard tidbits of accurate historical information along with all the myths in his environment and then he creatively imagined a narrative that incorporated all these things, then I don't have a problem believing that at all. 

15 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I figured as much. After years of posting, I think I've finally proven to myself that this is not the best forum to share my ideas, and have to admit that I'm a bit frustrated. As a comparison, about a year ago I emailed the exact same material to a professor of Religious History known well to readers of Bill Hamblin's blog. He was immediately interested. Said it was terrific stuff, and invited me to write it up for publication. Now, normally I wouldn't ever bother to share information like that (and I will likely edit it out). But I think it does demonstrate the bias that you might have when you dismiss material before even hearing it. I understand it all sounds kooky and far out, but when a leading expert on early Christianity and modern Christian reform movements claims "other historians of religion would be so excited by this" I have to wonder what error in communication I have made here to earn this reputation of being "loose" with my parallels. Maybe I just better refrain from discussing it publicly until I've published somewhere. Until then, I can see how it comes across as a load of jibberish.

Ok, let me think about this for a minute, you do seem like a very nice person, I haven't seen you engage in any attacks, you're patient and respectful on the message board.  So if I'm giving an honest evaluation about what I've thought when reading through your posts, I think there are two things that have kept me from engaging in your material more seriously. 

1.  My personal bias against seeing one more model for BoM lands.  I roll my eyes every time I hear about another one, and I'm extremely skeptical from the start.  I heard about a new Baja peninsula theory a few months back and did the same thing.  I'm just tired of it, because I feel like its another attempt by apologists stretching to find some kind of historicity in the text, because of a failure to find any actual evidence to support historicity with the past models.  

2. Communication.  I'll see you post something that supposedly is another piece in the Rechabites model puzzle, and I just don't have the overall context for how this fits into the big picture and why this new piece of information is relevant, or whether it is even a new piece, or how it fits with the other pieces.  Because I haven't read any essay or book to explain your whole model, I feel like I'm lost on the individual components and that is a barrier to my engaging with you on this subject as well.  

I do want to say that I appreciate your participation and I'm sorry if my lack of engagement has been frustrating to you.  I hope these thoughts might be of some use.  

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Obviously the conquistadors were far better than our modern archaeologist at finding artifacts in  past and present civilization, some of which we could not find until we used areal photography, even though we were within a few hundred yards of them.  I am sure when we start unearthing the recently discovered Guatemalan city(ies) what we will find in those building and tombs will be just be graffiti like "Hernán estaba agui" or  "Ponce usa ropa de su mama`", even though they had been abandoned 600 years before Columbus.  These amazing conquistadors were able to go through every existing city and every long  dead city and destroy every recognizable BoM artifact. They were also smart enough to not destroy any BoM artifacts they somehow knew we could not recognize as BoM artifacts.

Or, ¡Tu mamá lleva botas de combate! 😃

Could you suggest some characteristics that would identify an artificact as of  Lehite origin?

[Rajah Manchou]

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

So if you're saying that Joseph may have heard tidbits of accurate historical information along with all the myths in his environment and then he creatively imagined a narrative that incorporated all these things, then I don't have a problem believing that at all. 

That's right. For example, the Rechabite accounts are probably based on some distant historical event. You mentioned the Lemba having "Cohen" DNA. Groups in nearby Comoros Islands and Madagascar have the same DNA, and according to the researchers who did some of the testing it dates back to the first temple diaspora period...600 BC. The same is true for the Malabar Jews in India (although their migration tends to date younger). So I get somewhat bothered when people joke about Joseph Smith's crazy idea that Jews sailed across the sea in 600 BC. There is absolutely evidence for it.

Now of course, there is no evidence yet found in the Americas, but I'm not limiting my view to one limited area. I want to know if the Book of Mormon is based on historical events, regardless of where or when they might have occurred. 

I get especially frustrated when people endorsing (for example) the Island of Peru model roll their eyes at suggestions that the genetically-tested Jews of Cochin, Zimbabwe, Madagascar, Comoros and Burma might be some sort of proof that the Book of Mormon is based on historical events. Its bad enough to ignore the lack of evidence supporting your model of choice, its even worse to ignore the evidence of the model you think is cuckoo crazy. TBH, that's what I'm seeing you do.

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

1.  My personal bias against seeing one more model for BoM lands.  I roll my eyes every time I hear about another one, and I'm extremely skeptical from the start.  I heard about a new Baja peninsula theory a few months back and did the same thing.  I'm just tired of it, because I feel like its another attempt by apologists stretching to find some kind of historicity in the text, because of a failure to find any actual evidence to support historicity with the past models. 

Its a two way street. Many people are tired of yet another "Joseph obviously wrote it all by himself" threads. But I hear you. There shouldn't be so many models. I've regretted many times adding yet another. But this one is different. I try not to make a claim unless I can back it up with non-LDS scholarship. If anyone can point out where I have made a claim that I haven't backed up with non-LDS scholarship, I will withdraw it.

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

2. Communication.  I'll see you post something that supposedly is another piece in the Rechabites model puzzle, and I just don't have the overall context for how this fits into the big picture and why this new piece of information is relevant, or whether it is even a new piece, or how it fits with the other pieces.  Because I haven't read any essay or book to explain your whole model, I feel like I'm lost on the individual components and that is a barrier to my engaging with you on this subject as well.  I do want to say that I appreciate your participation and I'm sorry if my lack of engagement has been frustrating to you.  I hope these thoughts might be of some use.  

I tend to get overly enthusiastic about history, so I think my posts generally ramble. But thanks for your feedback, I really do appreciate it. I do plan on publishing soon, and am super paranoid of "loose parallels". Those bother me in other models, so I am probably overcompensating in seeking engagement.

Edited March 9, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[smac97]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its a real uphill battle to try and explain why no direct and explicit evidence has been found.  I have to applaud the creativity on some level.  

I wonder if you have unrealistic expectations about the preservation of "direct and explicit evidence" when dealing with a civilization which has been extinct for many, many centuries.  Really unrealistic expectations.

As an attorney I work with statutes of limitations, which are "laws passed by legislative bodies in common law systems to set the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated."  For example, in Utah, a medical malpractice claim must usually be filed within two years.  Tort claims are limited to four years.  Breach of contract claims are limited to six years.  These statutes exist for a few reasons.  From Wikipedia:

Quote

The purpose and effect of statutes of limitations are to protect defendants. There are three reasons for their enactment:

• A plaintiff with a valid cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence.
• By the time a stale claim is litigated, a defendant might have lost evidence necessary to disprove the claim.
• Litigation of a long-dormant claim may result in more cruelty than justice.

That second point is really important.  "Evidence" is very often fleeting.  Documents and tangible evidence are lost or mislaid, or their significance or meaning is lost.  Percipient witnesses move away or die, or their recollections fade, and they generally do not leave a record of their recollections.  Context becomes muddled or lost altogether.  These considerations are so significant that the U.S. legal system restricts legal claims to, usually, 2-6 years.

In contrast, the Nephites as a civilization ended around 401 A.D., or more than 1,600 years ago.  And yet you suggest that Mormons are being disingenuous regarding "evidence" of the Nephites ("I have to applaud the creativity {used to explain why no direct and explicit evidence of the Nephites has been found}"), when in fact we are acknowledging the very real limitations on what "evidence" can survive 1,600 years, on the amount of "evidence" that has not yet been discovered, and at the very real limitations we have in terms of properly understanding the meaning and context and significance of available evidence.

It's not "creativity."  It's realism.

Quote

Divine influence can't be tested and evaluated. 

The same can be said for the vast majority of ancient events, peoples, and so on.

My great-great grandfather, Alexander Findlay Macdonald was born September 15, 1825 in a tiny hamlet Camas-Luinie, Glenelchaig, Kintail Parish, Scotland (just a few miles from the location of the famous Eilean Donan Castle).  In 1847 he joined the LDS Church and eventually emigrated to Utah.  He lived in Salt Lake City, then Provo, then Springville, then St. George (where he became friends with John D. Lee, my wife's great-great grandfather), then to the colonies in Mexico.  He died in 1903.

We have this information about Alexander because he lived relatively recently, there were contemporary records (parish records) about him, because he has a large posterity who have kept records about him, and so on.  However, if I were to mount an expedition to Camas-Luinie and excavate its environs, looking for "direct and explicit evidence" of Alexander F. Macdonald having been born there, I think I would be disappointed.  That result, however, has less to do with whether Alexander F. Macdonald ever existed, and more to do with my unrealistic expectations as to the preservation of "direct and explicit evidence" through the centuries.

In your statement that "divine influence can't be tested and evaluated," you seem to be implying that the existence of a specific culture/civilization that existed somewhere in the Americas until around 400 A.D. can "be tested and evaluated" - presumably through archaeology and the like.  You seem certain that "direct and explicit evidence" of the Nephites is manifestly possible, even probable, so much so that the lack of such "direct and explicit evidence" can be sneeringly and sarcastically characterized as "creative" explanations from LDS apologists.  With respect, I think that conclusion has less to do with whether the Nephites ever existed, and more to do with your unrealistic expectations as to the preservation of "direct and explicit evidence" through the centuries.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 9, 2018 by smac97

[Rajah Manchou]

17 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

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.

There is substantial data for contact between Southeast Asia and America. Maternal haplogroups B and D for example and paternal haplogroups Q and C.

Blowguns, bark paper, sweet potatoes, chickens, craniums, temple architecture, gut bacteria, boat forms etc. But even with all that, scholars are cautious about making the claim. That's good. 

But we aren't seeing the same standards applied to the claim that Israelites somehow leaped over Southeast Asia and landed in Guatemala. 

Edited March 9, 2018 by Rajah Manchou