JarMan Posted July 26, 2018 Posted July 26, 2018 On 7/24/2018 at 5:46 PM, Glenn101 said: I do believe that Grotius was an inspired man, just not in this milieu. And I do not believe that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction. Glenn Well I’m glad you recognize he was inspired. At some point I’ll lay out all the evidence I’ve been gathering. But this is a huge project and I’ve already got plenty of things keeping me busy.
Rajah Manchou Posted July 26, 2018 Posted July 26, 2018 On 7/25/2018 at 4:57 AM, JarMan said: Among the popular theories of his day were that the natives of America were descended from the lost tribes or that they descended from Asians immediately following the Tower of Babel. Adopting these theories into a work of inspired fiction presumably held better prospects for incorporating the Bible and a Judeo-Christian message into the story. 1645 is too early for the Lost Tribe theory to have been considered popular. As far as I can tell, the idea that native Americans were from lost tribes isn't widespread in popular culture until Menasseh Ben Israel published Hope of Israel in 1650. Are you aware of any material published before 1645 that claimed that native Americans were of the Tribes of Israel? Everything I've seen compares the Native Americans to the Canaanites, a race to be conquered. There is Grotius' Dissertation on the Origin of the American Races which confirms many were convinced that native Americans wandered through Tartary into America. But he clearly doesn't approve, and casts doubt on the theory that Lost Tribes wandered that far. I know you've explained this as being a way to divert attention from politically unpopular views, and that he really did believe that Native Americans were Jews. But it is hard to argue against his own words:"Many said from this that they had been rescued from the sea, and have for that reason believed that they were Jews, forsooth of the ten tribes driven into Media; that they thence wandered through Tartary into America, by that long road of which reference, they think, is made in the fourth Book, called the Book of Esdra. Although these particulars have been thus piled together, and although they have succeeded in extorting the assent of many, yet they do not approve themselves to me. The writer of the Fourth of Esdra has his head full of vain dreams, and accordingly has been rejected by all. Nor is it America to which he says the Jews went, a land at that time unknown, not less to himself than to all others, but a kingdom which the Jews founded for themselves beyond the Sabbatick stream, as they say, by the Caspian gates, from which no news, no letter ever came; which no one has ever seen, nor ever will see, for it was only discovered by the Rabbinic hair-splitters, that the promises regarding the everlasting continuance of the kingdom in the seed of David, in Jesus Christ, might not be fulfilled, and may be believed to be still unfulfilled. Neither is it true that the Jews were in Tartary. And as to some thinking that they have discovered there the names of the Hebrew tribes, the words are old Scythian, as Euthalitæ, not Nephtalitæ, and so on, as learned men have made abundantly manifest." Reading that, it seems clear to me that if the Book of Mormon was written in the early 17th century, the author would have intended the setting to be "Nephtalites" somewhere "beyond the Sabbatick stream". Following popular and well-established medieval traditions of the period, these Recahbites and "Sons of Moses" would have inhabited the islands just beyond the Sabbath River. The Nephites were the Nephtalites in the Great Tartary. Only after 1650 do we start seeing speculation that Native Americans were Israelites. 3
Glenn101 Posted July 26, 2018 Posted July 26, 2018 3 hours ago, JarMan said: Well I’m glad you recognize he was inspired. At some point I’ll lay out all the evidence I’ve been gathering. But this is a huge project and I’ve already got plenty of things keeping me busy. I believe that there have been a lot of people inspired/prompted by the Holy Ghost down through the ages. I do not believe that Grotius was inspired to write a fiction that became the Book of Mormon. I believe Joseph's version buttressed by many witnesses and my own confirmation via the Holy Ghost. Glenn
JarMan Posted July 26, 2018 Posted July 26, 2018 15 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: 1645 is too early for the Lost Tribe theory to have been considered popular. As far as I can tell, the idea that native Americans were from lost tribes isn't widespread in popular culture until Menasseh Ben Israel published Hope of Israel in 1650. Are you aware of any material published before 1645 that claimed that native Americans were of the Tribes of Israel? Everything I've seen compares the Native Americans to the Canaanites, a race to be conquered. There is Grotius' Dissertation on the Origin of the American Races which confirms many were convinced that native Americans wandered through Tartary into America. But he clearly doesn't approve, and casts doubt on the theory that Lost Tribes wandered that far. I know you've explained this as being a way to divert attention from politically unpopular views, and that he really did believe that Native Americans were Jews. But it is hard to argue against his own words:"Many said from this that they had been rescued from the sea, and have for that reason believed that they were Jews, forsooth of the ten tribes driven into Media; that they thence wandered through Tartary into America, by that long road of which reference, they think, is made in the fourth Book, called the Book of Esdra. Although these particulars have been thus piled together, and although they have succeeded in extorting the assent of many, yet they do not approve themselves to me. The writer of the Fourth of Esdra has his head full of vain dreams, and accordingly has been rejected by all. Nor is it America to which he says the Jews went, a land at that time unknown, not less to himself than to all others, but a kingdom which the Jews founded for themselves beyond the Sabbatick stream, as they say, by the Caspian gates, from which no news, no letter ever came; which no one has ever seen, nor ever will see, for it was only discovered by the Rabbinic hair-splitters, that the promises regarding the everlasting continuance of the kingdom in the seed of David, in Jesus Christ, might not be fulfilled, and may be believed to be still unfulfilled. Neither is it true that the Jews were in Tartary. And as to some thinking that they have discovered there the names of the Hebrew tribes, the words are old Scythian, as Euthalitæ, not Nephtalitæ, and so on, as learned men have made abundantly manifest." Reading that, it seems clear to me that if the Book of Mormon was written in the early 17th century, the author would have intended the setting to be "Nephtalites" somewhere "beyond the Sabbatick stream". Following popular and well-established medieval traditions of the period, these Recahbites and "Sons of Moses" would have inhabited the islands just beyond the Sabbath River. The Nephites were the Nephtalites in the Great Tartary. Only after 1650 do we start seeing speculation that Native Americans were Israelites. The theory that the natives of the west were Jews was very popular in the 1500's and 1600's among the Spanish. I could dig up several sources but it will be much easier to cite a secondary source. Quote The Spanish historians, mostly ecclesiastics, who dealt with the alleged Israelitish origin of the inhabitants of the New World, ranged themselves in two schools. The one hailed the new subjects of Spain as the progeny of Israel. The other, while admitting the existence of certain Hebrew practices and customs among the natives, suggested Satan as their source. "Satan had counterfeited in this People (whom he had chosen for himself), the history, manners, customs, traditions, and expectations of the Hebrews, in order that their minds might thus be rendered inaccessible to the faith, which he foresaw the church would in due time introduce amongst them!" In the former school were to be found Las Casas, Sahagun, Boturini, Garcia, Gumilla, Beneventa, and Peter Martyr. In the latter, the advocates of Satan, were included Torquemada, Herrera, Gomara, Acosta, Cortez, D'Olmes, and Diaz. Also: Quote As illustrative of the views of the Spanish advocates of the Israelitish descent of the natives of America, we may accept the opinions expressed by Gregorio Garcia, in Origern de los Indios, published in I607. By him, that view is stated to have been generally adopted by the unlettered multitude, although not so universally by scholars. It is of course based on the well-known passage in Esdras
Glenn101 Posted July 26, 2018 Posted July 26, 2018 5 minutes ago, JarMan said: 16 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: The theory that the natives of the west were Jews was very popular in the 1500's and 1600's among the Spanish. I could dig up several sources but it will be much easier to cite a secondary source. What were the views among the French, Dutch, and English?
JarMan Posted July 26, 2018 Posted July 26, 2018 1 hour ago, Glenn101 said: What were the views among the French, Dutch, and English? This paper from the Neal A. Maxwell Institute provides some additional information. To directly answer your question, though, it was a mixed bag. The Spanish and Portuguese were the first to explore America so you see them speculating the earliest. You don't really see the speculation among the Dutch and English until the mid-1600's once they had begun exploration in earnest. As with the Spanish, some supported a lost tribes model while others had different ideas. 1
Rajah Manchou Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, JarMan said: The theory that the natives of the west were Jews was very popular in the 1500's and 1600's among the Spanish. I could dig up several sources but it will be much easier to cite a secondary source. "Very popular in the 1500s and 1600s" is not easy to support. Seems all we have to go on is Garcia's 1607 comment that the lost tribe theory was generally adopted by the unlettered masses, but was panned by nearly all the scholars writing about it, including Grotius. If it turns out that the EmodE found in the Book of Mormon does point to a 17th century author/translator, I think you have a case for Grotius, or an associate. But attempts to locate a 1645 narrative in the Americas are difficult to support. Grotius and nearly all educated writers at the time were opposed to the idea that Israelites wandered as far as the West Indies, without residing in Asia for many centuries previous. However, it would not be unlikely that Grotius, or another 17th century Dutch author would have written a book about the Dutch East Indies. There was far more information available about the East Indies, and tradition had always placed the lost tribes and Sons of Moses in the East Indies, beyond the Sabbath River. This sums up my take on your Grotius theory: "Grotius’ intervention in the American debate is best understood as part of an intellectual context that demanded the antiquarianization of his Christian apologetics. In 1639 he had been working on a heavily annotated edition of the Latin version of his De Veritate Religionis Christianae, which appeared in Paris in 1640. The additional 363 pages of mainly classical references gave support to a succinct defence of the truth of the Christian religion originally written in Dutch and whilst in prison, for sailors and traders travelling overseas (that first version, in verse, had been published in 1622, and then translated into prose Latin in 1627). Grotius’ apology was based on the patristic minimalism that also formed the basis of his ecumenism, and the defence of the universal validity of monotheism in the first book of the treatise attracted many of his most erudite notes. His intellectual strategy was directly borrowed from early Christian writers like Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius and Lactantius. It required first of all establishing rationally the universal authority of the Biblical testimony, and in particular that of Moses as reputed author of the Pentateuch, whilst canvassing a wide range of pagan sources in confirmation. From this perspective, the key task of the theologically-minded humanist antiquarian was harmonizing Biblical and Gentile history, rather than insisting on dogmas of faith such as the Trinity and the Incarnation. However, Grotius’ reliance on ancient sources for this task meant that his references to the American Indians, on the authority of Acosta, Herrera and Inca Garcilaso, were paltry compared with his reliance on the ancient accounts of Egypt, Phoenicia, Greece and Mesopotamia by Josephus, Eusebius and Strabo. In fact his oriental Indians, the Brahmins, were entirely based on Megasthenes (through Strabo), ignoring any additional sources from the more recent Portuguese and Jesuit experiences. The American Indians, on the other hand, were mentioned only to offer proof that the memory of the Flood was universal, and that their oracles predicting the Spanish conquest were surely proof of Providence. It is not impossible that these annotations were the starting point that led Grotius to write what essentially was a complement to his apologetics, a defence of Biblical monogenism that incorporated with more precision the newly-found American Indians into his grand historical narrative. But that also meant approaching the new ethnographic sources from heavily classical background, and indeed from a distinctly superficial knowledge of previous discussions of the same topic.” - Hugo Grotius's dissertation on the origin of the American peoples and the use of comparative methods As noted above, in De Veritate Religionis Christianae Grotius wrote about the knowledge the Brahmins of East India, and the Calaminsamians of Pegu, had of the Bible (source). He was drawing primarily from ancient sources describing the Brahmins/Rahmans of the East Indies. I've gone into detail elsewhere of how the geography and history of the Carian/Karen of Rahma (the Calaminsamians of Pegu described by Grotius) aligns with the Book of Mormon narrative. IMO, if Grotius, or any other individual predating the publication of Hope of Israel (1650), was the author of the Book of Mormon, they were writing about the Protestant Dutch East Indies, not the Spanish Catholic West Indies. Edited July 27, 2018 by Rajah Manchou
JarMan Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: "Very popular in the 1500s and 1600s" is not easy to support. Seems all we have to go on is Garcia's 1607 comment that the lost tribe theory was generally adopted by the unlettered masses, but was panned by nearly all the scholars writing about it, including Grotius. I think my statement is supported. I linked to this paper in a post above, but I'll pull out some of the relevant quotes. Quote By contrast, arguably the earliest and surely the most popular and doggedly persistent of all the traditions was the belief that the Native Americans had originated from the lost ten tribes of Israel. Having been forced out of Palestine into parts of the Assyrian empire by King Shalmaneser in the first half of the eighth century bc, remnants of these Israelites, or Hebrew peoples, so the theory argues, eventually made their way over land and sea to the New World. Also: Quote The theory was first put to paper in 1567 by Joannes Fredericus Lumnius. More given to “abstruse” theology and to biblical exegesis than to careful study of geography, Lumnius laid out the staples of this theory: that according to the book of Esdras in the Apocrypha—and supported by 1 Kings, 2 Chronicles, and Isaiah in the Old Testament—the lost ten tribes somehow escaped from their Assyrian captors and crossed the great waters to Arsareth, or America. Over the next few years, several Spanish friars working in Mexico—including Juan Suárez de Peralta, Diego Durán, and Juan de Tovar—arrived at the same conclusion, although with slightly differing interpretations. For instance, Peralta did not believe that the lost tribes were the only ancient peoples to come to the Americas, but that they followed others, likely the Carthaginians. The Book of Mormon doesn't start with the Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdom, though, which might be expected if the popular theory was going to be incorporated into the story. Instead, it starts just before the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem. Interestingly, the story does center around a people descended from one of the lost tribes. It's just that their ancestors had presumably made it south to safety either before, during or soon after the Assyrian conquest. My theory on this is that the author really wanted to incorporate some of the OT stuff, particularly Isaiah, that occurred after the Northern Kingdom was destroyed. But he also felt it necessary to have the story be about a branch of Israel that was broken off. Thus we get a story about Lehi's family of the tribe of Manasseh living in Jerusalem around 600 BC. 14 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: If it turns out that the EmodE found in the Book of Mormon does point to a 17th century author/translator, I think you have a case for Grotius, or an associate. But attempts to locate a 1645 narrative in the Americas are difficult to support. Grotius and nearly all educated writers at the time were opposed to the idea that Israelites wandered as far as the West Indies, without residing in Asia for many centuries previous. Grotius' assertion that there were multiple peoples who made it to America speaks to this point a little bit, but not in the way, I don't think, that you are thinking. He did claim an Asian people had made a trans-Pacific voyage. Could the fact that elephants only occur with the Jaredites have something to do with them taking an overland Asian route before getting on their barges? Could cureloms and cumoms be other types of Asian animals brought with them? I realize that silk is another Asian item and it is mentioned with both the Nephites and Jaredites. But this looks more like a literary topos from the translator as it is always mentioned with fine linen. 14 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: However, it would not be unlikely that Grotius, or another 17th century Dutch author would have written a book about the Dutch East Indies. There was far more information available about the East Indies, and tradition had always placed the lost tribes and Sons of Moses in the East Indies, beyond the Sabbath River. You're right that the East Indies were very important to the Dutch in Grotius' time. But there was a surprising amount of information available about the New World, too, mostly from Spanish priests such as Jose de Acosta who wrote this book in 1590. The Dutch were also publishing books about the new world by the 1630's as well. It's the New World that really held people's fascination. It was vast, strange, and home to many different peoples. And as I mentioned before, the Book of Mormon isn't about the lost tribes per se. It doesn't try to reveal the answer to the mystery of where the lost tribes had gone. So it's really a non sequitur to say the lost tribes went to X so the Book of Mormon took place at X. It would be more logically consistent to say the Book of Mormon didn't take place at X. 14 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: As noted above, in De Veritate Religionis Christianae Grotius wrote about the knowledge the Brahmins of East India, and the Calaminsamians of Pegu, had of the Bible (source). He was drawing primarily from ancient sources describing the Brahmins/Rahmans of the East Indies. I've gone into detail elsewhere of how the geography and history of the Carian/Karen of Rahma (the Calaminsamians of Pegu described by Grotius) aligns with the Book of Mormon narrative. IMO, if Grotius, or any other individual predating the publication of Hope of Israel (1650), was the author of the Book of Mormon, they were writing about the Protestant Dutch East Indies, not the Spanish Catholic West Indies. How do you interpret 1 Nephi 13, particularly verses 12 and 13, in an east Asian setting? Doesn't it seem obvious those verses are talking about Columbus and later explorers to America? Edited July 27, 2018 by JarMan
Rajah Manchou Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, JarMan said: I think my statement is supported. I linked to this paper in a post above, but I'll pull out some of the relevant quotes. I’ve read Bennet’s paper a number of times over the years as it was really the first LDS publication that forced a shift in my thinking on a number of things. That said, it is possible we are defining very popular and most popular in different ways, for different times, among different groups of people. My reading is that the most popular theory of Native American origins has always been that they were Asians. A quick timeline might be useful: 1492-1510: Columbus discovers Hispaniola. He believes he is on an island near the coast of Cathay (China), and is not surprised at all to find natives there as he believed he was in Asia and these natives were the Indians (India), Brahmans/Rahmans (Burma), Cattigarans (Cambodia), Champans (Vietnam) and Cipanguans (Japan) known from the accounts of explorers like Marco Polo. The very first speculation regarding the origins of these natives comes from Columbus himself. He believes they are Indians, from the land of Ophir mentioned in the Bible. This is the earliest theory on native American origins. 1506: Nobody seems too concerned with the origins of the natives found in the New World. It is still widely believed that they are simply Asian. In his last letter, Amerigo Vespucci states his belief that, based on their facial features and pigmentation, these natives are Tatars, from Asia. Vespucci suspects this new world is connected to Asia in the north, so he has no reason to suspect the natives of the Indies are anything but full-blooded Asians. 1507: After Vespucci, Martin Waldseemuller produced the first map speculating that these natives were living on a large landmass between Europe and India. He called this landmass America. 1511: The first hint that the natives of this America pose a problem for the Biblical worldview comes from Pedro Martir de Angleria. He notes Colombus’ identification with Ophir, but adds that they are like the nomads of Scythia. He also notes that these natives seem to have no contact with the incense traders of Arabia. Angleria, quoting Balboa and Peter Martyr, appears to be the source of Grotius’ speculation that the darker natives of the Panama and Yucatan were descendants of shipwrecked Ethiopians. 1520: After Magellan traversed the Pacific to discover Guam and the Philippines, the theory that American natives were full-blooded Asians was challenged. The most common resolution to this problem is that Asia and America are connected in the north, and Native Americans were Asians that had walked there from Tartary. This theory becomes the most popular and accepted, even until today. There has always been speculation regarding who those Asians were (Scythians, Atlanteans, Malay, Ophirians, Mongols, Polynesians, Tartarians, Japethites, Israelites), but that is a separate question. 1520-1550: During this period of Spanish colonization of South America, there is a noticeable increase in speculation that the Native Americas came across the Atlantic. In summarizing the popular theories during this period, Lee Eldridge Huddleston says: “The most popular theory judged from the literary evidence was the Atlantean, followed closely by the Carthaginian origin theory.” 1550-1650: This seems to be the period when speculation about the lost tribes takes shape. But oddly, nobody seems to commit to it. In his "Origins of the American Indians" Lee Eldridge Huddleston says he was unable to find any early commitment to the theory of Hebraic origins, other than statements that it was common, or that so-and-so believed it. "Many modern authorities, such as Imbelloni (1956) and Wauchope (1962) accept the attribution of such a belief to Las Casas, Oviedo, Garcia, Juan de Torquemada, Diego Duran and Felipe Guaman Pema de Ayala. Of these six men, all writing before 1613, only one - Diego Duran - clearly committed himself to the Hebrew origin theory.” So it seems we really need to dig into the primary sources to determine exactly who, and when, this theory was popularized. Looking at the primary sources, there is not a whole lot of support for it in the 1500s. However, in rereading Bennet’s paper, I found one interesting thing supporting your view, while also confirming my view. It appears that Joannes Fredericus Lumnius, a Dutch priest, was one of the first to lay out the lost tribe theory in print. “The theory that the Indians of America descended from the Hebrews, or more particularly the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, apparently originate in published form with Joannes Fredricus Lumnius’ De Extremo Dei Iudicio et Indorum vocatione issued at Antwerp in 1567.” But here’s the catch. In Bennet's mention of Lumnius' Arsareth theory above, he seems to be paraphrasing Huddleston: "Lumnius’ De Extremo Dei Indicio is largely concerned with abstruse theological points; this, together with his slim geographical knowledge, makes for a confusing book. For example, his references to India leave it unclear whether he means East or West India…he seems to have thought that Asiatic India was not far from West India. Lumnius introduced most of the theological arguments which were later advanced to indicate a Hebrew origin for the Indians. The basis for his story of how the Jews got to America was the fourth book of Esdras whose authority Lumnius accepted despite its apocryphal standing. The authority of IV Kings and the prophet Isaiah supported the Esdras account…Lumnius’ argument was that the ten tribes of Hebrews exiled to various parts of the Assyrian Empire by Shalmaneser had escaped to Arsareth which Lumnius identified as India (America).” I think you can see the problem. Many of these early, in fact the first, writers on the topic of American origins, were talking about an unidentified India, or the Indies. They could make no clear distinction between the East Indies and the West Indies. Let me summarize my model. The Book of Mormon narrative was formed in the confusion in which there was no clear boundary between east and west. Elephants, silk, horses, cimeters, chariots and all these items that are anachronistic to a 19th century view of the New World are not anachronistic to a 16th century view of the New World. It is further confirmation that the Book of Mormon was not written by Joseph Smith, but rather by a 16th century author. If the Book of Mormon was written in the late 16th century it would not be accurate to identify it as an account of the former inhabitants of (insert 19th century term for location that was misidentified in the 16th century). It would be safer to say the Book of Mormon is an account of the former inhabitants of X, and the source from whence they sprang. Am I making sense? 11 hours ago, JarMan said: How do you interpret 1 Nephi 13, particularly verses 12 and 13, in an east Asian setting? Doesn't it seem obvious those verses are talking about Columbus and later explorers to America? This would require a longer response, and this has already become too long. But the short answer is that the East Indies appears to me to be a better fit than the West Indies. For example, consider this "Extract of an Hebrew Letter Sent to Holland from the East Indies; with an Account of the State of the Jews" https://www.evernote.com/l/AAiBYg40HGxNSr4U6Ox8kEbQ5XkckK2JnFc As the Dutch expanded into the East Indies they encountered Israelites with brass plates claiming histories dating from as early as the 6th century BC. Early accounts of these first and second temple Israelites with colonies stretching throughout the Indies are a good fit for 1 Nephi 13: Depart Jerusalem in the 6th century BC, cross the great waters, and arrive in 582 BC. Captive Gentiles (saints of God fleeing the condemnation of Constantinople and Persian persecution) arrive upon the land of promise, causing the former inhabitants to scatter. Christian gentiles are given the land for their inheritance and set up Syrian churches and Christian kingdoms that (according to folklore) surpass the size and might of those in Europe. Columbus given vision of this promised land, in the East Indies. Mother gentiles (the Portuguese and Dutch mentioned in the letter) battle on the waters and land causing the Jewish inhabitants to flee to another location. For the sake of brevity, I will stop there. But given the historical accounts of 6th century BC Jewish colonies in the East Indies, there's a lot of information that Grotius or another 16th/17th century author could have drawn from. Edited July 28, 2018 by Rajah Manchou 2
Rajah Manchou Posted July 28, 2018 Posted July 28, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, JarMan said: The theory was first put to paper in 1567 by Joannes Fredericus Lumnius. More given to “abstruse” theology and to biblical exegesis than to careful study of geography, Lumnius laid out the staples of this theory: that according to the book of Esdras in the Apocrypha—and supported by 1 Kings, 2 Chronicles, and Isaiah in the Old Testament—the lost ten tribes somehow escaped from their Assyrian captors and crossed the great waters to Arsareth, or America. While Huddleston, Bennet's source, says something completely different:"Lumnius’ De Extremo Dei Indicio is largely concerned with abstruse theological points; this, together with his slim geographical knowledge, makes for a confusing book. For example, his references to India leave it unclear whether he means East or West India…he seems to have thought that Asiatic India was not far from West India. Lumnius introduced most of the theological arguments which were later advanced to indicate a Hebrew origin for the Indians. The basis for his story of how the Jews got to America was the fourth book of Esdras whose authority Lumnius accepted despite its apocryphal standing. The authority of IV Kings and the prophet Isaiah supported the Esdras account…Lumnius’ argument was that the ten tribes of Hebrews exiled to various parts of the Assyrian Empire by Shalmaneser had escaped to Arsareth which Lumnius identified as India (America).” So the lost tribes in America theory really starts out as the lost tribe in the Indias theory. There's a lot of missing information in that gap between the East Indies and the West Indies. Edited July 28, 2018 by Rajah Manchou
JarMan Posted July 29, 2018 Posted July 29, 2018 23 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: I’ve read Bennet’s paper a number of times over the years as it was really the first LDS publication that forced a shift in my thinking on a number of things. That said, it is possible we are defining very popular and most popular in different ways, for different times, among different groups of people. My reading is that the most popular theory of Native American origins has always been that they were Asians. A quick timeline might be useful: 1492-1510: Columbus discovers Hispaniola. He believes he is on an island near the coast of Cathay (China), and is not surprised at all to find natives there as he believed he was in Asia and these natives were the Indians (India), Brahmans/Rahmans (Burma), Cattigarans (Cambodia), Champans (Vietnam) and Cipanguans (Japan) known from the accounts of explorers like Marco Polo. The very first speculation regarding the origins of these natives comes from Columbus himself. He believes they are Indians, from the land of Ophir mentioned in the Bible. This is the earliest theory on native American origins. 1506: Nobody seems too concerned with the origins of the natives found in the New World. It is still widely believed that they are simply Asian. In his last letter, Amerigo Vespucci states his belief that, based on their facial features and pigmentation, these natives are Tatars, from Asia. Vespucci suspects this new world is connected to Asia in the north, so he has no reason to suspect the natives of the Indies are anything but full-blooded Asians. 1507: After Vespucci, Martin Waldseemuller produced the first map speculating that these natives were living on a large landmass between Europe and India. He called this landmass America. 1511: The first hint that the natives of this America pose a problem for the Biblical worldview comes from Pedro Martir de Angleria. He notes Colombus’ identification with Ophir, but adds that they are like the nomads of Scythia. He also notes that these natives seem to have no contact with the incense traders of Arabia. Angleria, quoting Balboa and Peter Martyr, appears to be the source of Grotius’ speculation that the darker natives of the Panama and Yucatan were descendants of shipwrecked Ethiopians. 1520: After Magellan traversed the Pacific to discover Guam and the Philippines, the theory that American natives were full-blooded Asians was challenged. The most common resolution to this problem is that Asia and America are connected in the north, and Native Americans were Asians that had walked there from Tartary. This theory becomes the most popular and accepted, even until today. There has always been speculation regarding who those Asians were (Scythians, Atlanteans, Malay, Ophirians, Mongols, Polynesians, Tartarians, Japethites, Israelites), but that is a separate question. 1520-1550: During this period of Spanish colonization of South America, there is a noticeable increase in speculation that the Native Americas came across the Atlantic. In summarizing the popular theories during this period, Lee Eldridge Huddleston says: “The most popular theory judged from the literary evidence was the Atlantean, followed closely by the Carthaginian origin theory.” 1550-1650: This seems to be the period when speculation about the lost tribes takes shape. But oddly, nobody seems to commit to it. In his "Origins of the American Indians" Lee Eldridge Huddleston says he was unable to find any early commitment to the theory of Hebraic origins, other than statements that it was common, or that so-and-so believed it. "Many modern authorities, such as Imbelloni (1956) and Wauchope (1962) accept the attribution of such a belief to Las Casas, Oviedo, Garcia, Juan de Torquemada, Diego Duran and Felipe Guaman Pema de Ayala. Of these six men, all writing before 1613, only one - Diego Duran - clearly committed himself to the Hebrew origin theory.” So it seems we really need to dig into the primary sources to determine exactly who, and when, this theory was popularized. Looking at the primary sources, there is not a whole lot of support for it in the 1500s. However, in rereading Bennet’s paper, I found one interesting thing supporting your view, while also confirming my view. It appears that Joannes Fredericus Lumnius, a Dutch priest, was one of the first to lay out the lost tribe theory in print. “The theory that the Indians of America descended from the Hebrews, or more particularly the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, apparently originate in published form with Joannes Fredricus Lumnius’ De Extremo Dei Iudicio et Indorum vocatione issued at Antwerp in 1567.” But here’s the catch. In Bennet's mention of Lumnius' Arsareth theory above, he seems to be paraphrasing Huddleston: "Lumnius’ De Extremo Dei Indicio is largely concerned with abstruse theological points; this, together with his slim geographical knowledge, makes for a confusing book. For example, his references to India leave it unclear whether he means East or West India…he seems to have thought that Asiatic India was not far from West India. Lumnius introduced most of the theological arguments which were later advanced to indicate a Hebrew origin for the Indians. The basis for his story of how the Jews got to America was the fourth book of Esdras whose authority Lumnius accepted despite its apocryphal standing. The authority of IV Kings and the prophet Isaiah supported the Esdras account…Lumnius’ argument was that the ten tribes of Hebrews exiled to various parts of the Assyrian Empire by Shalmaneser had escaped to Arsareth which Lumnius identified as India (America).” I think you can see the problem. Many of these early, in fact the first, writers on the topic of American origins, were talking about an unidentified India, or the Indies. They could make no clear distinction between the East Indies and the West Indies. Let me summarize my model. The Book of Mormon narrative was formed in the confusion in which there was no clear boundary between east and west. Elephants, silk, horses, cimeters, chariots and all these items that are anachronistic to a 19th century view of the New World are not anachronistic to a 16th century view of the New World. It is further confirmation that the Book of Mormon was not written by Joseph Smith, but rather by a 16th century author. If the Book of Mormon was written in the late 16th century it would not be accurate to identify it as an account of the former inhabitants of (insert 19th century term for location that was misidentified in the 16th century). It would be safer to say the Book of Mormon is an account of the former inhabitants of X, and the source from whence they sprang. Am I making sense? This would require a longer response, and this has already become too long. But the short answer is that the East Indies appears to me to be a better fit than the West Indies. For example, consider this "Extract of an Hebrew Letter Sent to Holland from the East Indies; with an Account of the State of the Jews" https://www.evernote.com/l/AAiBYg40HGxNSr4U6Ox8kEbQ5XkckK2JnFc As the Dutch expanded into the East Indies they encountered Israelites with brass plates claiming histories dating from as early as the 6th century BC. Early accounts of these first and second temple Israelites with colonies stretching throughout the Indies are a good fit for 1 Nephi 13: Depart Jerusalem in the 6th century BC, cross the great waters, and arrive in 582 BC. Captive Gentiles (saints of God fleeing the condemnation of Constantinople and Persian persecution) arrive upon the land of promise, causing the former inhabitants to scatter. Christian gentiles are given the land for their inheritance and set up Syrian churches and Christian kingdoms that (according to folklore) surpass the size and might of those in Europe. Columbus given vision of this promised land, in the East Indies. Mother gentiles (the Portuguese and Dutch mentioned in the letter) battle on the waters and land causing the Jewish inhabitants to flee to another location. For the sake of brevity, I will stop there. But given the historical accounts of 6th century BC Jewish colonies in the East Indies, there's a lot of information that Grotius or another 16th/17th century author could have drawn from. This is a lot to respond to so I'll point out a few things. The Book of Mormon cannot be 16th Century. There are several things that place it later than that. First is the KJB which came about in 1611. Now you might hypothesize a 17th Century translation of a 16th Century work, but there are several concepts that weren't developed until the 17th Century. For instance, the Armenian soteriology seen in the Book of Mormon was developed in the Netherlands in response to Dutch Calvinism actually after Arminius' death in 1609. The Miltonesque Garden of Eden story first appears in 1599. The Galileoisms are 17th Century with heliocentrism being an idea that didn't become well known until the 1630's. I know of no proposed 16th Century writer who meets all of the qualifications to be the writer. There's just no way a 16th Century model is viable. So one of the problems with your model is that by the 1600's, and certainly by the 1630's the global map was known pretty accurately. There was no doubt that the west indies was, in fact, a giant landmass quite separate from the east indies. Educated people simply weren't confused about this fact. It goes back to my coin hoard analogy. We've got a hoard of coins, found in 1829, with the latest coins dating sometime between about 1635 and 1645 so there's no way the coin hoard was buried in the 1500's. I should mention that I greatly appreciate your efforts to take an honest look at my model and your feedback has helped me identify areas that need to be strengthened or re-constructed. I feel an obligation to provide you with some honest feedback, as well. My struggle is that I'm having a difficult time understanding exactly what you are proposing. I understand you are proposing an East Asian setting. But I'm not exactly sure if you think there is any amount of historicity. As far as I can tell you think it is based on legends that have some amount of truth to them. So far this doesn't necessarily contradict my model because I am hypothesizing a fictional work that incorporates historical or legendary elements. I have identified events in 16th/17th Century Europe, particularly the Netherlands, that have Book of Mormon parallels. But I've identified events from the ancient Roman Empire with parallels, too. And, clearly, biblical events show an influence throughout. So I completely expect other historical or legendary elements to also be incorporated. It would be helpful to me if you could provide a brief outline of your current hypothesis. (I feel like it's shifted from here to there over time so I'm interested in where you are right now.) It may be that our hypotheses are not mutually exclusive, or at least that there is some amount of overlap.
Rajah Manchou Posted July 29, 2018 Posted July 29, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, JarMan said: This is a lot to respond to so I'll point out a few things. The Book of Mormon cannot be 16th Century. There are several things that place it later than that. First is the KJB which came about in 1611. Now you might hypothesize a 17th Century translation of a 16th Century work, but there are several concepts that weren't developed until the 17th Century. For instance, the Armenian soteriology seen in the Book of Mormon was developed in the Netherlands in response to Dutch Calvinism actually after Arminius' death in 1609. The Miltonesque Garden of Eden story first appears in 1599. The Galileoisms are 17th Century with heliocentrism being an idea that didn't become well known until the 1630's. I know of no proposed 16th Century writer who meets all of the qualifications to be the writer. There's just no way a 16th Century model is viable. All valid. I like a lot of the points you have made about early 17th century authorship, so I’m rolling with it. Not because I agree or disagree, but rather to see where it leads. 7 hours ago, JarMan said: So one of the problems with your model is that by the 1600's, and certainly by the 1630's the global map was known pretty accurately. There was no doubt that the west indies was, in fact, a giant landmass quite separate from the east indies. Educated people simply weren't confused about this fact. I still have my doubts that enough was known pre-1645 to accurately map out the Pacific Rim. If a 17th century author looked at a map in an attempt to find a path for his Lehites to America, he would have seen something like this: Why would a 17th century Dutch author send his Israelite heroes through a labyrinth of Dutch colonies in the Moluk Islands (said to already be inhabited by lost tribes and first-temple Jews), and past a massive unexplored Dutch continent called New Holland, to plant them in the middle of New Spain? Edited July 29, 2018 by Rajah Manchou 2
JarMan Posted July 29, 2018 Posted July 29, 2018 11 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: All valid. I like a lot of the points you have made about early 17th century authorship, so I’m rolling with it. Not because I agree or disagree, but rather to see where it leads. I still have my doubts that enough was known pre-1645 to accurately map out the Pacific Rim. If a 17th century author looked at a map in an attempt to find a path for his Lehites to America, he would have seen something like this: I don't see a problem, here. The globe had been circumnavigated some hundred-plus years earlier so there was no doubt it was possible. This is the map Grotius was most likely familiar with as it was published in the 1630's by a fellow Dutchman. We also have to consider a western route or even a southern route. 11 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: Why would a 17th century Dutch author send his Israelite heroes through a labyrinth of Dutch colonies in the Moluk Islands (said to already be inhabited by lost tribes and first-temple Jews), and past a massive unexplored Dutch continent called New Holland, to plant them in the middle of New Spain? I just don't see what 17th Century geo-political realities have to do with a story purporting to be ancient history. We wouldn't expect Jews to be living where the Book of Mormon took place. The original Lehite religion became Christian. Then it was completely corrupted before the people were destroyed. And then well over a thousand years passed. The modern presence of Judaism in a place does not support that place being the setting for the Book of Mormon. We would expect just the opposite: no sign (or very little sign) of Judaism.
win-win Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 On 6/22/2018 at 10:58 AM, Ryan Dahle said: Try to find a valid explanation for why so much material from 2nd and 3rd Enoch, and especially the Book of Giants shows up in the Book of Moses. Try to find a rational explanation for why so much Abrahamic lore—most of it not accessible to Joseph Smith—shows up in the Book of Abraham. I could go on and on. There are literally hundreds of articles and books that highlight interesting and important pieces of evidence related to the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Why is it that so many people, on their way out of the LDS church, don’t seriously engage with this massive body of evidence that could potentially help revitalize their testimonies? I have personally invited quite a few individuals struggling with faith to take this information seriously and to engage it thoroughly, and in essentially all cases the response has been to essentially ignore the offer. I guess I want to hear from some of you—who have chosen to not seriously engage these evidences—explain why you have made this choice, especially in light of my analysis above. And I am being sincere here. I don’t want to rehash each of these issues and prove I am right. I just genuinely want to understand your rationale. To name a few: https://lettertoanapostle.org/2018/02/26/archaeology/ http://mit.irr.org/scientific-search-nephite-remains Dr. Coe has offered a few professional opinions including this one: http://www.mormonthink.com/backup/coe.pdf Are you saying that the book of Enoch or Giants wasn't accessible or known during Smith's era? How do you know Abrahamic lore wasn't accessible to Joseph Smith? Archaeology prior to, and during his era was in full swing and Smith and his group showed a keen interest in religion. Why is it hard to entertain the notion that they would be interested in these books along with other books? The Book of Enoch was in revival during Smith's era. For example copied from wiki: Quote The first English translation of the Bodleian/Ethiopic manuscript was published in 1821 by Richard Laurence, titled The Book of Enoch, the prophet: an apocryphal production, supposed to have been lost for ages; but discovered at the close of the last century in Abyssinia; now first translated from an Ethiopic manuscript in the Bodleian Library. Oxford, 1821. Revised editions appeared in 1833, 1838, and 1842. In 1838, Laurence also released the first Ethiopic text of 1 Enoch published in the West, under the title: Libri Enoch Prophetae Versio Aethiopica. The text, divided into 105 chapters, was soon considered unreliable as it was the transcription of a single Ethiopic manuscript.[64] In 1833, Professor Andreas Gottlieb Hoffmann of the University of Jena released a German translation, based on Laurence's work, called Das Buch Henoch in vollständiger Uebersetzung, mit fortlaufendem Kommentar, ausführlicher Einleitung und erläuternden Excursen. Two other translations came out around the same time: one in 1836 called Enoch Restitutus, or an Attempt (Rev. Edward Murray) and one in 1840 called Prophetae veteres Pseudepigraphi, partim ex Abyssinico vel Hebraico sermonibus Latine bersi (A. F. Gfrörer). However, both are considered to be poor—the 1836 translation most of all—and is discussed in Hoffmann.[65] The first critical edition, based on five manuscripts, appeared in 1851 as Liber Henoch, Aethiopice, ad quinque codicum fidem editus, cum variis lectionibus, by August Dillmann. It was followed in 1853 by a German translation of the book by the same author with commentary titled Das Buch Henoch, übersetzt und erklärt. It was considered the standard edition of 1 Enoch until the work of Charles. The generation of Enoch scholarship from 1890 to World War I was dominated by Robert Henry Charles. His 1893 translation and commentary of the Ethiopic text already represented an important advancement, as it was based on ten additional manuscripts. In 1906 R.H. Charles published a new critical edition of the Ethiopic text, using 23 Ethiopic manuscripts and all available sources at his time. The English translation of the reconstructed text appeared in 1912, and the same year in his collection of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Quote quote wiki: Most of the content in the Book of Giants is derived out of 1 Enoch 7:3-6. Are you referring to his lack of knowledge in The Book of Abraham's incorrect claims of phallic symbols, etc. In this case it works against your position. I'll tell you a story that fits into your explanation. I work with a 13 yr old F.A.S. girl with extreme bi-polar mood swings. She is high functioning with raging sexual hormones. Physically she looks neuro-typical and even cute, but has evident mental function disabilities once engaged for long periods of time. She has trouble connecting bridges of information but at times appears to be a genius and I wonder how her brain came up with ideas. More than a few times my mind goes back to Christian possession beliefs and I've thought she is possessed because of the way her personality changes while she comes up with information that no 13 yr old with limited internet cell phone connection and mental pathway issues could possibly come up with. I can actually see her physically and verbally appear with information that couldn't be known by someone her age but is delivered in a way that appears to be someone much older. A few times I've asked her how old she really is, to which this ''thing'' inside her goes berserk. If I ask her how a 13 yr old kid could possibly know or say the thing she's just said she shuts down in a very unusual way. By observing her I can see why people come up with a possession terminology and definition. In her case she has a diagnosed brain dysfunction, but compare this to a man I came across online who believes he's the incarnation of Jesus. He has a website and youtube and provides retreats. By all counts he looks and behaves neuro-typically and has had a psychological evaluation to determine that he isn't insane or mentally impaired. He's charismatic and even physically looks like what some might think Jesus could look like. He comes up with information and memories that he claims he wouldn't have known, but upon research I can tell that some of his information certainly was known by himself and others, and that he is lying. Other times I can see in him the same type of ''possession'' I've seen with the 13 yr old. I see a level of psychosis in him that is lying, manipulative and deviant as he also delivers some good ideas. Whatever this ''possession'' for lack of better labels really is I have no idea, but I know that it is both smart and accurate while conversely being stupid and inaccurate. It's generally deviant to some degree or other whether that's displayed in sexual deviance or other types of manipulative deviance. Is it a brain wiring anomaly? Is there really disembodied beings possessing these people and having a great time with it; perhaps trying to convey information or just play games with people? Whatever this is, I can observe it also in Joseph Smith to an excess. I've since watched channelers who consciously become a vehicle for beings they claim are speaking and communicating through them. In some cases different channelers get similar information as other channelers. It doesn't mean the information is correct, it means that they are getting similar information that they didn't know before. I've noticed that sometimes the information is good, sometimes it's in error, but it's packed with a deviant format. (consider the channeled Seth books that brought a generation to conflict over sexuality in the name of spirituality while providing counter information on each page and sometimes on each paragraph.) When these types are charismatic and want to make a living or a career off it they usually end up with a large following who believe and defend every word while discarding or excusing information that might prove it wrong.
Rajah Manchou Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, JarMan said: I don't see a problem, here. The globe had been circumnavigated some hundred-plus years earlier so there was no doubt it was possible. This is the map Grotius was most likely familiar with as it was published in the 1630's by a fellow Dutchman. Notice the map above doesn't include land that is unknown? That map is one of the few in the 1630s that doesn't have the legendary Austral continent extending from Java to South America and that doesn't place Guam, Gilola, Guinea and other islands south of Northern California. Writers like Grotius thought of the Pacific Ocean as a Strait between the unidentified land in the north (Tartary) and the unidentified land in the south (Australis). If we are trying to get at what Grotius himself understood of this region that was still so new that there wasn't yet agreement on what to call it, we don't need to look at maps, we can instead read his dissertation on the topic: "Some of us have called America from Vespucius, others Western India, which extends from the Northern Ocean to the Straits of Magellan—a tract very long and broad, indeed—lying between the Atlantic sea and another, which washes China, and is known to some as the Pacific, and to others as of the South." Grotius seems to believe that this America, or Western India, was close enough to East India to be inhabited by the same native people:"I come now to the other part of America which extends from the Isthmus of Panama to the Straits of Magellan. All who have written of this tract of country agree that the people, in carriage, manners, and language, agree with those who have their settlements beyond that neck of land. Wherefore it is allowable for us to believe that the men on this side are descended from those on the other side of the isthmus, and the more so that the Peruvians have always said that the men in that part of the world were of foreign extraction. Now, it is credible that the old inhabitants had heard that the part of the world which is across the Straits, [1] and which then stretches through a long tract, composed partly of continuous land and partly of small indenting inlets, under the name of New Guinea, till within view of Gilolus, Java, and other islands of the Indian Ocean, and is all called the Austral Continent in the maps, had received its primitive inhabitants from Java, Gilolus, &c. But the more highly refined minds of the Peruvians, their capacity for just and extended government, testify to another origin, which, if I see anything, can be no other than from the Chinese, a race of equal elegance and equal imperial ability. This is confirmed by the remains of the Chinese ships, which, according to the report of the Spaniards, have been discovered on the shore of the Pacific Sea. Nor is there any cause for wonder if the Chinese, being well versed in navigation, have been induced to penetrate into lands separated from them by a single sea, either by the curiosity of exploring them, or by necessity, the great propagator of the human race." 1: The Strait is evidently Grotius’s idea of the Pacific west of South America. Questions: if Grotius was the author of the Book of Mormon, would Central/South America (known by Grotius to not have elephants and horses) be the most logical real world setting for his epic? Could you give one or two reasons why you suspect Grotius would have been writing about Central America, and not somewhere in the Dutch East Indies? I simply don't see anything in the Book of Mormon that is so unmistakably "American" that a reader in 1640 would say, yup, that's definitely a story about Israelites in America. 3 hours ago, JarMan said: I just don't see what 17th Century geo-political realities have to do with a story purporting to be ancient history. We wouldn't expect Jews to be living where the Book of Mormon took place. The original Lehite religion became Christian. Then it was completely corrupted before the people were destroyed. And then well over a thousand years passed. The modern presence of Judaism in a place does not support that place being the setting for the Book of Mormon. We would expect just the opposite: no sign (or very little sign) of Judaism. That's what we find. According to the tradition, the area in India/Asia where the lost tribes had been hiding had been converted to Christianity (in the 1st century AD by the identical twin brother of Jesus I might add) and was ruled over by the very humble gentile named Prester John. The legend was so popular that his kingdom was marked on the first map to include America. A number of European explorers like Marignolli and Varthema found gentile Christians, and pagans that were familiar with Christianity, throughout the East Indies. Edited July 30, 2018 by Rajah Manchou
win-win Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 16 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: Notice how that mapmaker above doesn't draw land that is unknown? That map is one of the few in the 1630s that doesn't have the legendary Austral continent extending from Java to South America and that doesn't place Guam, Gilola, Guinea and other islands south of California. Writers like Grotius thought of the Pacific Ocean as a Strait between the unidentified land in the north (Tartary) and the unidentified land in the south (Australis). If we are trying to get at what Grotius himself understood of the Pacific, and the early inhabitants of this ocean/strait and land that was still so new that there wasn't yet agreement on what to call it and how it all related to India and China: "Some of us have called America from Vespucius, others Western India, which extends from the Northern Ocean to the Straits of Magellan—a tract very long and broad, indeed—lying between the Atlantic sea and another, which washes China, and is known to some as the Pacific, and to others as of the South." Grotius seems to believe that this America, or Western India, was close enough to East India to be inhabited by the same native people:"I come now to the other part of America which extends from the Isthmus of Panama to the Straits of Magellan. All who have written of this tract of country agree that the people, in carriage, manners, and language, agree with those who have their settlements beyond that neck of land. Wherefore it is allowable for us to believe that the men on this side are descended from those on the other side of the isthmus, and the more so that the Peruvians have always said that the men in that part of the world were of foreign extraction. Now, it is credible that the old inhabitants had heard that the part of the world which is across the Straits, [1] and which then stretches through a long tract, composed partly of continuous land and partly of small indenting inlets, under the name of New Guinea, till within view of Gilolus, Java, and other islands of the Indian Ocean, and is all called the Austral Continent in the maps, had received its primitive inhabitants from Java, Gilolus, &c. But the more highly refined minds of the Peruvians, their capacity for just and extended government, testify to another origin, which, if I see anything, can be no other than from the Chinese, a race of equal elegance and equal imperial ability. This is confirmed by the remains of the Chinese ships, which, according to the report of the Spaniards, have been discovered on the shore of the Pacific Sea. Nor is there any cause for wonder if the Chinese, being well versed in navigation, have been induced to penetrate into lands separated from them by a single sea, either by the curiosity of exploring them, or by necessity, the great propagator of the human race." 1: The Strait is evidently Grotius’s idea of the Pacific west of South America. So, if Grotius was the author of the Book of Mormon, is Central/South America (known by Grotius to not have elephants and horses) the most logical real world setting? Can you give one or two reasons why you suspect Grotius would have been writing about South America, and not somewhere closer to the Dutch East Indies? That's what we find. The area in India/Asia where the lost tribes had been hiding had been converted to Christianity and was ruled over by the very humble gentile named Prester John. The legend was so popular that his kingdom was marked on the first map to include America. A number of European explorers like Marignolli and Varthema found gentile Christians, and pagans that were familiar with Christianity, throughout the East Indies. Rajah, do you believe the story of Prester John? Who were the map makers and did they have a political agenda? Please refer to an example article: http://devdutt.com/articles/world-mythology/when-prester-john-ruled-india.html Quote Eight hundred years ago, Europeans believed that a Christian priest-king called Prester John ruled India. Those were the days of the Crusades. Under the spiritual leadership of the Pope, Christian soldiers fought to reclaim the Holy Lands, especially Jerusalem, which had been under the control of Muslims since the 700s. In the midst of all this turmoil, the Catholic leadership received word about a mysterious Eastern ruler known as Prester John, or Presbyter John, or Priesty Juan, or Priester John, or any one of a dozen or so similar-sounding names, whose empire stretched beyond Persia and Arabia across Three Indias. With an eastern Christian flank opening up, European Christian monarchs hoped to trap and crush the Muslims once and for all. Who was this Prester John? According to an old legend, one of Christ’s apostles, St Thomas, was supposed to have traveled to India, there to establish a Christian community that retained many of the ideals of the original church, and which would blossom into an almost perfect Christian kingdom, ruled over by this legendary king, Prester John. The legend of the journey of St Thomas to India was current by the 3rd century AD, and was widespread enough in 833 for Alfred the Great to send two priests with gifts to St Thomas’ shrine on the east coast of India. The first authentic mention of Prester John occurred in the 1145 chronicle of Otto of Freising. Otto recounted that the first news of Prester John had been brought to the Holy See by the Bishop of Gabala (near Antioch). According to the Bishop’s report, ruling in the East somewhere there was a Christian king named Prester John, who was descended from the Magi, and who ruled over a fantastically wealthy kingdom. Prester John had recently destroyed the armies of Media, Persia and Assyria, and was was heading for the Holy Land to defend Jerusalem against the Muslims, but, according to the report, was prevented from getting there by adverse conditions: his vast army waited in vain for years for the River Tigris to freeze in order to cross it and enter the Muslim lands. In 1165 the original secondhand report of Otto of Freising’s chronicle was overshadowed by the appearance in Europe of a seemingly authentic letter from Prester John. Prester John described himself as the ruler of the Three Indias, a realm that extended from the Tower of Babel to the rising of the sun; he gave an elaborate account of the marvels and riches of his kingdom, and declared his intention of visiting Rome after defeating the enemies of Christ (the Muslims). I, Presbyter Johannes, the Lord of Lords, surpass all under heaven in virtue, in riches, and in power; seventy-two kings pay us tribute … Our land is the home of elephants, dromedaries, camels, crocodiles, meta-collinarum, cametennus, tensevetes, wild asses, white and red lions, white bears, white merules, crickets, griffins, tigers, lamias, hyenas, wild horses, wild oxen, and wild men — men with horns, one-eyed men, men with eyes before and behind, centaurs, fauns, satyrs, pygmies, forty-ell high giants, cyclopses, and similar women. It is the home, too, of the phoenix and of nearly all living animals. The Amazons and the Brahmins are subject to him. This is how his army is described When we ride abroad plainly we have a wooden, unadorned cross without gold or gems about it, borne before us in order that we meditate on the sufferings of our Lord Jesus Christ; also a golden bowl filled with earth to remind us of that whence we sprung and that to which we must return; but besides these there is borne a silver bowl full of gold as a token to all that we are the Lord of Lords. This is how his palace is described The palace in which our Superemincency resides is built after the pattern of the castle built by the apostle Thomas for the Indian king Gundoforus. And perhaps the most fantastic of all is the magical mirror that enables him to see and control his vast empire from one spot. Before our palace stands a mirror, the ascent to which consists of five and twenty steps of porpyry and serpintine … This mirror is guarded day and night by three thousand men. We look therein and behold all that is taking place in every province and region subject to our sceptre. Apparently this letter had first been sent to the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire in Constantinople, where copies of it had been made and circulated around the courts of Europe. The letter had arrived at a time when the Muslim pressure on the crusader states in the Holy Land was increasing; its promise of relief was a welcome message. In 1177 Pope Alexander II wrote what is generally understood to have been a reply to Prester John, entrusted it to his personal physician, Master Philip, and sent him off on his way to deliver the letter. It is known that Master Philip and his letter got as far as Palestine, but after that all reports of him disappeared. The anxious pope received no reply. Sometimes the concept of Prester John could be confused with actual living kings. For instance, for a long time many Europeans believed that Genghis Khan was in fact Prester John. The Mongol hordes had invaded the Middle East in 1221 and had seriously damaged the Islamic occupation of the area. This invasion seemed to many to be the actual invasion of Prester John at the head of his Christian army, driving westwards from central Asia in order to drive the Muslims out of the Holy Land. In a contemporary chronicle, a monk wrote of the “rumors sweeping right across Christendom of the coming of King David of India, whose other name is Prester John, to the aid of the crusaders.” To add to all these reports and rumours, an apparently independent report out of Hungary in 1223 declared that “the king of Hungary informed the Pope that a certain king David, or Prester John as he is being called, has entered Russia with a great multitude of people. He had left India 7 years before, taking with him the body of the blessed apostle; and during this [westward] journey his army killed 200,000 Russians and Rumanians.” In 1248 a church envoy to the court of the Mongols, a Franciscan friar called Giovanni Capini, further added to the legend of Prester John by reporting that P John was the king of Greater India who defeated the Mongols (this time) by creating men out of copper, filling them with Greek fire, and placing them on horseback, so burning the Mongol army completely. By the early fourteenth century, most of the European rulers, popes, etc. seemed to have given up hope of finding Prester John anywhere in Asia – after all, by this time numerous diplomatic envoys as sundry other travellers had been through most parts of Asia without finding the wondrous king himself. It took several centuries for Europeans to, regretfully, admit that Prester John was nothing more than a legend. The question that they asked themselves, and which historians and the curious have asked themselves ever since, is – who wrote the supposed authentic letter from Prester John to the rulers of Europe that turned up in 1165? There’s a theory that it was written by a cleric with a good knowledge of ancient Latin sources – because of some of the information contained within the letter. The argument goes that it was actually written on behalf of the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, who wanted to assert temporal power over the spiritual power of the papacy by inventing a magnificent Christian king in a distant land. This would not have been possible if people had not strongly wanted to believe in the tale of a mighty Christian king who would relieve the Holy Lands of the Islamic menace; the many fantastic details of the letter simply related what medieval people believed the mysterious Asian kingdoms were like. Even when most European travelers in Asia failed to find any trace of Prester John, Europeans still wanted to believe in this king so much they simply moved his kingdom to a different place, then a different place again, in order to keep on believing in him. Traveling friars insisted that they had been to the country of Prester John perhaps because it made their journeys more fantastic and exciting. Some of the sights and societies they encountered in the Far East were so strange that it must have been easy for someone who so desperately wanted to believe that they’d found the kingdom of Prester John (even if they hadn’t found the man himself). Their reports once they got home simply lent weight to the argument that Prester John existed. There are many who still believe that Prester John was a historical figure, albeit a distorted one. Theories include but are not limited to: Prester John’s tale was a cheap rip-off of a medieval romance about Alexander the Great. Prester John was a Christian-Tibetan llama who ruled the mythical kingdom of Shambala and/or Shangri-La. Prester John wasn’t Christian at all, but was in fact a Tibetan or Indian or possibly Mongol ruler who just had Christianity attributed to him after the fact. Prester John was the king of Ethiopia, where more Nestorian Christians could be found. Prester John was Patriarch John of India, who visited Pope Calixtus II in 1122, with all the rest of the legend being simply embellishment. The legend of Prester John, apart from its curiosity value, really helped stimulate exploration of the Far East and Asia. Numerous explorers and official diplomatic envoys set out in order to make contact with this wonderful king. If it hadn’t been for Prester John, then quite possibly some of the European contacts with the Asian world in the medieval period would never have been made, or at least left to a much later date. An understanding of his fabulous mythology helps us appreciate how India was viewed in Europe before Vasco da Gama made his monumental journey in 1498. It also helps us appreciate how myths are created in history and die as soon as they outlive their utility. Quote The “White” or Paradesi Jews were primarily exiles from the Spanish Inquisition in Spain and Portugal and settled in Kochi while the “Black” or Malabari Jews migrated centuries earlier and lived in several places. Before colonial times, the reigning rulers extended special privileges to this tiny Jewish population, which included land for their synagogues. The Bene Israel group claim that they descend from 14 Jewish men and women, equally divided by gender, who survived the shipwreck of refugees from persecution or political turmoil, and came ashore at Navagaon anywhere between 3rd century and 5th century ce. Quote One journalist writes: https://indianexpress.com/article/research/narendra-modi-in-israel-here-is-everything-you-need-to-know-about-indian-jews/ The date of their arrival is yet to be ascertained, but a local legend suggests that the Bene Israeli arrived between 1600 and 1800 years back when they were shipwrecked on the Konkan coast. As per the legend, only 14 of them survived and they took refuge in a village called Nawgaon, close to Bombay, now Mumbai. Over the years, this myth of origin has been grafted into the legend of the ten lost tribes of Israel, and the Bene Israeli are known to have originated from the northern part of Israel. Some Jewish merchants settled in Kerala, India, about 50 BCE. The local legend states that others moved to the country after the first temple was destroyed during the siege of Jerusalem and were warmly received by India's Cheraman Perumal, the ruler of the Chera dynasty. The Roman Catholic Church had a habit of establishing new Christian locations where previous jewish settlements were known, or providing stories to help corroborate redaction and interpolation, however the Kochin, Kerala, India settlement claimed to be Thomas but the earliest that settlement could be dated is to Emperor Constantine's era 3rd century ce and later. Rome was in the business of conquering through religion via Catholicism Christianity. Any information and artifacts haven't dated prior. Rome had a massive political agenda in which they used a new religion to dominate and although Rome lost political power and control they've managed to retain some of their religious power. Prior to Emperor Constantine's push for Christianity in 3rd century ce some Romans wanted a religion and control on par with Greece, but Rome was polytheist and lacked one cohesive religion to use as control. History proved that Rome got their wish and the religious effects are still seen today, but it didn't come without manipulation of all formats and varieties.
Rajah Manchou Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 4 minutes ago, win-win said: Rajah, do you believe the story of Prester John? I believe the legend is based on what little was known about the Indies at that time. Europeans believed the lost tribes had been converted to Christianity by Thomas. These suspicions were confirmed by reports of primitive Thomas churches in India and China coming back to Europe. Much of these reports seem to have been based on misidentification of Buddhist monks in Burma and Siam (and the Dalai Lama in Tibet) as Christians. This is surprisingly relevant to the discussion, as Buddhism was unknown at the time, and the rumors were that the founder of this Christian-like religion was a 6th century BC Egyptian-Jewish priest.
JarMan Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said: Grotius seems to believe that this America, or Western India, was close enough to East India to be inhabited by the same native people: I don't know how you are coming to this conclusion. I don't read his paper as saying anything of the sort. And look at the vast size of the Pacific Ocean on the map. It's basically depicted to scale. 1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said: Questions: if Grotius was the author of the Book of Mormon, would Central/South America (known by Grotius to not have elephants and horses) be the most logical real world setting for his epic? Could you give one or two reasons why you suspect Grotius would have been writing about Central America, and not somewhere in the Dutch East Indies? I simply don't see anything in the Book of Mormon that is so unmistakably "American" that a reader in 1640 would say, yup, that's definitely a story about Israelites in America. Elephants were only part of the Jaredite culture who presumably brought them on their way through Asia. But then they died out with the Jaredites. And I don't believe horses were intended to be in the Book of Mormon. They are never mentioned doing horse-y things like being ridden, pulling something, or being used in warfare. I think they come about as part of the translation process where the English translator lists animals he is familiar with. America was clearly the focus and fascination of Europe in the 17th Century. It was the frontier. The East Indies, on the other hand, were waning in importance; they were yesterday's news. I don't know what kind of thing would have been considered unmistakably American in the 17th Century besides Columbus' discovery. The flora and fauna lists seem to be literary topois written by a European without much familiarity with America. Same with the metallurgy and other similar lists. We do have the natives being scattered and smitten; and then the bible being taken to them. We also have the Jaredite voyage which lasted almost a year. This sounds much more like a trans-Pacific trip than a relatively short intra-Asian trip. 1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said: That's what we find. According to the tradition, the area in India/Asia where the lost tribes had been hiding had been converted to Christianity (in the 1st century AD by the identical twin brother of Jesus I might add) and was ruled over by the very humble gentile named Prester John. The legend was so popular that his kingdom was marked on the first map to include America. A number of European explorers like Marignolli and Varthema found gentile Christians, and pagans that were familiar with Christianity, throughout the East Indies. By the same token we would expect to find very little Christianity to have survived. Edited July 30, 2018 by JarMan
Rajah Manchou Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, JarMan said: I don't know how you are coming to this conclusion. I don't read his paper as saying anything of the sort. And look at the vast size of the Pacific Ocean on the map. It's basically depicted to scale. I got it from this quote from Grotius: "Now, it is credible that the old inhabitants had heard that the part of the world which is across the Straits (a footnote here says this straight between America and Java is how Grotius perceived the Pacific Ocean) and which then stretches through a long tract, composed partly of continuous land and partly of small indenting inlets, under the name of New Guinea, till within view of Gilolus, Java, and other islands of the Indian Ocean, and is all called the Austral Continent in the maps, had received its primitive inhabitants from Java, Gilolus, etc." So imagine a channel extending between Mexico and Indonesia, bounded by Tartary/Canada in the north and Australis on the south, with islands scattered throughout. The thinkers of that period imagined that Javans and other islanders were hopping around within that channel and inhabiting the Austral continent to the south of Mexico. The only point we disagree on is where the author intended the Book of Mormon setting to be. I expect the intended geography was an island in the East Indies. Why? Because that would eliminate every anachronism in the Book of Mormon. It would resolve the problem of geography. It would align the text with tradition and history and with the knowledge that people like Grotius clearly had. Placing it in America is fraught with problems that can only be resolved by saying things like: silk is just a literary topos the elephants died out the flocks were ducks horses were actually just horse-y things iron cimeters are mentioned out of ignorance north is really east Edited July 30, 2018 by Rajah Manchou
JarMan Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 44 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: I got it from this quote from Grotius: "Now, it is credible that the old inhabitants had heard that the part of the world which is across the Straits (a footnote here says this straight between America and Java is how Grotius perceived the Pacific Ocean) and which then stretches through a long tract, composed partly of continuous land and partly of small indenting inlets, under the name of New Guinea, till within view of Gilolus, Java, and other islands of the Indian Ocean, and is all called the Austral Continent in the maps, had received its primitive inhabitants from Java, Gilolus, etc." In this passage Grotius is presenting an idea that he thinks is plausible, but then ultimately rejecting it. The idea is that people came to America from Indonesia. Indonesia is our name for what he was describing as “a long tract, composed partly of continuous land and partly of small indenting inlets…” (and so forth). He well knew the extent of the Pacific as seen on the contemporaneous maps. And 344 days is a long time for an ocean voyage. 56 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: The only point we disagree on is where the author intended the Book of Mormon setting to be. I expect the intended geography was an island in the East Indies. Why? Because that would eliminate every anachronism in the Book of Mormon. It would resolve the problem of geography. It would align the text with tradition and history and with the knowledge that people like Grotius clearly had. Placing it in America is fraught with problems that can only be resolved by saying things like: silk is just a literary topos the elephants died out the flocks were ducks horses were actually just horse-y things iron cimeters are mentioned out of ignorance north is really east I don’t see a need to eliminate all anachronisms. We would expect there to be anachronisms in a work of this type—particularly if the work includes a translation from a different language into English. We should expect literary topois that reflect the milieu of the writer/translator instead of the intended location. We should also expect outright mistakes. The writer was expert in many different areas but not well versed in all things. We see in Grotius’ exchange with de Laet regarding the origin of the natives that de Laet was better informed about the natural world, for example. Am I wrong in assuming you live somewhere in Asia? (You tend to post at times of day when people in America are generally sleeping.)
Ryan Dahle Posted July 30, 2018 Author Posted July 30, 2018 12 hours ago, win-win said: To name a few: https://lettertoanapostle.org/2018/02/26/archaeology/ http://mit.irr.org/scientific-search-nephite-remains Dr. Coe has offered a few professional opinions including this one: http://www.mormonthink.com/backup/coe.pdf Are you saying that the book of Enoch or Giants wasn't accessible or known during Smith's era? How do you know Abrahamic lore wasn't accessible to Joseph Smith? Archaeology prior to, and during his era was in full swing and Smith and his group showed a keen interest in religion. Why is it hard to entertain the notion that they would be interested in these books along with other books? The Book of Enoch was in revival during Smith's era. None of your sources or responses address the evidences I was specifically referring to. That suggests to me that you don't really know about the evidences I was referring to. Which suggests to me that you aren't well-read in LDS scholarship on these issues. Which suggests to me that discussing/debating them with you is not going to be productive. Moreover, LDS scholars have already responded (sometimes repeatedly) to the issues you have brought up: the phallic symbol in the Abraham facsimile (not in the Book of Abraham, as you claimed), Michael Coe's mostly uninformed dismissals of LDS research pertaining to Mesoamerica, and the panolpy of claims from MormonThink and MIT. You apparently aren't aware that there are responses to all of these issues. If you were, I assume you would responsibly address the responses instead of just citing claims that have already been addressed. So, on another front, I just don't think this is going to be a productive conversation. Sorry.
Rajah Manchou Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 13 hours ago, JarMan said: In this passage Grotius is presenting an idea that he thinks is plausible, but then ultimately rejecting it. The idea is that people came to America from Indonesia. Indonesia is our name for what he was describing as “a long tract, composed partly of continuous land and partly of small indenting inlets…” (and so forth). He doesn’t really reject the idea. In the next sentence he says that he beleives they were Chinese, not Javanese. But all would have passed through the same Strait. The idea he rejects is that Jews made that trip. 13 hours ago, JarMan said: He well knew the extent of the Pacific as seen on the contemporaneous maps. And 344 days is a long time for an ocean voyage. Weren't Solomon's trips from the Red Sea to Ophir and back 3 years? Anybody with knowledge of that account might have made a guess of 1 to 1.5 years for a one way ticket to a promised land in the Indias circa 2500 BC. 13 hours ago, JarMan said: I don’t see a need to eliminate all anachronisms. We would expect there to be anachronisms in a work of this type—particularly if the work includes a translation from a different language into English. We should expect literary topois that reflect the milieu of the writer/translator instead of the intended location. We should also expect outright mistakes. The writer was expert in many different areas but not well versed in all things. We see in Grotius’ exchange with de Laet regarding the origin of the natives that de Laet was better informed about the natural world, for example. If Grotius was the author, I see no advantages to a Mesoamerican setting. Help me out, what reasons might Grotius have had to write an elaborate pseudo-Biblical fiction placing Biblical things in a place he believed those things didn’t fit? Wouldn't a more reasonable/probable setting be a place where he knew those things did fit? 13 hours ago, JarMan said: Am I wrong in assuming you live somewhere in Asia? (You tend to post at times of day when people in America are generally sleeping.) Yes, I live in the kingdom known to Grotius as Judea. : ) View of Judea, the Capital of Siam, Johannes Vinckboons, c. 1662 - c. 1663In 1608, the Dutch East India Company opened an office to conduct trade in dyewood, tin and animal skins in Judea (Ayutthaya), the capital of the Kingdom of Siam (now Thailand). From that post, the Dutch also successfully maintained contact with the Siamese royal court. Already in 1609, the king sent a delegation to the Dutch Republic to strengthen diplomatic relations. The company was ultimately granted permission to build its own shipyard in Judea. Edited July 30, 2018 by Rajah Manchou
JarMan Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 10 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: He doesn’t really reject the idea. In the next sentence he says that he beleives they were Chinese, not Javanese. But all would have passed through the same Strait. The idea he rejects is that Jews made that trip. Weren't Solomon's trips from the Red Sea to Ophir and back 3 years? Anybody with knowledge of that account might have made a guess of 1 to 1.5 years for a one way ticket to a promised land in the Indias circa 2500 BC. If Grotius was the author, I see no advantages to a Mesoamerican setting. Help me out, what reasons might Grotius have had to write an elaborate pseudo-Biblical fiction placing Biblical things in a place he believed those things didn’t fit? Wouldn't a more reasonable/probable setting be a place where he knew those things did fit? Yes, I live in the kingdom known to Grotius as Judea. : ) View of Judea, the Capital of Siam, Johannes Vinckboons, c. 1662 - c. 1663In 1608, the Dutch East India Company opened an office to conduct trade in dyewood, tin and animal skins in Judea (Ayutthaya), the capital of the Kingdom of Siam (now Thailand). From that post, the Dutch also successfully maintained contact with the Siamese royal court. Already in 1609, the king sent a delegation to the Dutch Republic to strengthen diplomatic relations. The company was ultimately granted permission to build its own shipyard in Judea. Nobody thinks the trip to Ophir was three years of sailing. Obviously there was time for preparation, loading and so forth. Let's do some simple comparisons. Hong Kong to the coast of Guatemala is about 9,000 miles. Kuwait City to Guatemala is about 14,000 miles. Based on this I'm assuming the Jaredite journey was somewhere between 9,000 and 14,000 miles. Amsterdam to Java is about 12,000 miles. The second Dutch expedition to the East Indies took about 7 months of sailing one way. This is about 57 miles per day. We probably wouldn't expect the Jaredites to travel as quickly as the Dutch since they apparently didn't have sails. They did, however, have a wind pushing them the entire journey. Let's pretend the Jaredites traveled roughly half the speed of the Dutch ships. This would get them about 10,000 miles in the 344 days mentioned in the Book of Mormon. This seems like a reasonable estimate to me based on what Grotius would have known. I can't imagine traveling 344 days with the help of a strong wind the entire time and only getting a couple of thousand miles. This would mean the Jaredites were only traveling one-tenth the speed of a Dutch ship. That just doesn't add up. Even a 4,000 or 5,000 mile journey seems too short considering the duration of the journey. If Grotius knew something about a 600 BC journey from Israel (to anywhere) it could have influenced his story. I think America makes perfect sense for the setting. Ever since America was discovered it was seen by European Christians as a vast mission field. It was a huge land compared to the East Indies. The Book of Mormon is written to the natives of the land (and others, of course). It's the ultimate proselyting tool. And it's clear anti-Catholic message is a trump card to the Catholic inroads already being made by the Spanish and Portuguese. I still believe the coming forth of the Book of Mormon was guided by divine providence. So the fact that it came to Joseph in America tells me the story takes place somewhere in America.
Rajah Manchou Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, JarMan said: This seems like a reasonable estimate to me based on what Grotius would have known. Grotius didn’t believe that Solomon’s fleets could reach the Indies, let alone the Jaredites reaching America 1500 years earlier. He was so unconvinced the ancients could travel such great distances that he believed Ophir was in Arabia. So its hard to imagine he’d be the author of a Jaredite adventure across the Pacific. This conversation reminds me of a map we’ve already looked at, showing where 17th century explorers and mapmakers placed the islands of the Indies. The Solomon Islands were named after Solomon because the Spanish navigator Alvaro de Mendana believed them to be Ophir, directly below California. 7 hours ago, JarMan said: If Grotius knew something about a 600 BC journey from Israel (to anywhere) it could have influenced his story. Grotius probably did know about the 600 BC journey of the Jews to Cochin, India. Within a few years of his death the Dutch were set up in Cochin and already discussing the black and white Jews they found there, and the missing pre-exilic Biblical texts that they had brought with them from Yemen, and kept safe in iron boxes along with their brass plates. IMO, this is the foundational narrative of the Book of Lehi. 7 hours ago, JarMan said: Ever since America was discovered it was seen by European Christians as a vast mission field. It was a huge land compared to the East Indies. That's also what I expected to find. But instead I found the opposite to be true: Haystack Prayer Meeting The first American missionaries were directly influenced by Claudius Buchanan's account (Star in the East) of the first temple Black Jews of Cochin, and their brass plates. These missionaries were also followers of Oliver Cowdery's great Uncle Nathanael Emmons, who was slightly frustrated that the young missionaries weren't interested in the Native Americans, and were sailing off to places like India, Sri Lanka and Burma. 7 hours ago, JarMan said: The Book of Mormon is written to the natives of the land (and others, of course). It's the ultimate proselyting tool. And it's clear anti-Catholic message is a trump card to the Catholic inroads already being made by the Spanish and Portuguese. I still believe the coming forth of the Book of Mormon was guided by divine providence. So the fact that it came to Joseph in America tells me the story takes place somewhere in America. Joseph was something special. He was revealing scripture from all over. Within a few months of publishing the Book of Mormon he was revealing Old World scripture. According to David Whitmer, his next feat was to be the translation of the records of the tribes that wandered through Asia. That's incredibly significant IMO. Moroni was going to replace the Golden Plates with another set of scriptures, from Asia. The revelatory work Joseph was called to do was more expansive, geographically, than we seem willing to allow. Edited July 31, 2018 by Rajah Manchou
cinepro Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) On 7/30/2018 at 6:43 AM, Ryan Dahle said: Moreover, LDS scholars have already responded (sometimes repeatedly) to the issues you have brought up: There are different kinds of responses. Sometimes a response adequately addresses an issue and resolves it, but sometimes it doesn't. A good way to tell is whether or not that issue continues to be brought up by those who are familiar with the response. It's pretty much a given that believers are going to accept almost any "response" that is offered. That's not difficult. But let's not pretend that just because a response is offered the issue has been resolved, or that because believers accept a response that it is rock-solid and totally sound (although I suspect that for most people offering a response, having the believers accept it and maintain their belief is enough, if not the primary objective.) Edited July 31, 2018 by cinepro
Recommended Posts