How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass

[Nofear]

Apparently this is one of the more "hot" or fresh items in the nay-sayer world is the book How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass by Lars Nielson. He also has a bunch of podcasts and a website. Don't really want to spend time listening to podcasts (not my preferred form of information consumption) so I looked for a summary from the website. From an objective design perspective, the website* is awful. Setting that aside, it also has no real information. There is a preview chapter of the book. It starts off with a discussion of a Catholic Priest born in 1601 who was enthralled by Egyptology and believed in magic. But how and why this all becomes a rational story of how The Book of Mormon came about ... I can't quite imagine. But I'm sure there  is some way the author connected the dots. To understand that I'll need help.

Can somebody give me the abbreviated version of this next fad in the long pedigree of failed attempts to explain away The Book of Mormon?

 

* One will have to do a web search for it to get to it.

[The Nehor]

It is the idea that the writings of Athanasius Kircher, the 17th century Jesuit polymath scientist was a source for Spaulding and Rigdon and John Smith (Joseph Smith’s third cousin iirc) which led to the Book of Mormon. Supposedly this came via Dartmouth College. I have heard the theory that Joseph Smith was ‘secretly’ educated at Dartmouth too.

Kircher thought he was translating hieroglyphs back then. He was wrong. I think this is somehow tied to the Book of Abraham or something. I didn’t focus much on the details and only read summaries.

Edited to add: One of the bullseyes i have seen touted is that Ramah was a high place in something Kircher wrote or translated and that there is a hill called Ramah in the Book of Mormon. Of course there is also a city called Ramah in the Bible which seems a more likely source.

Edited April 19, 2024 by The Nehor

[Amulek]

That seems to be the gist of it. Here's the diagram that shows what he believes to be all the possible ways to get from Kircher to Joseph Smith: link.

He posits that Kircher's writings provided information / inspiration for Professor John Smith's creation of a work of fiction he allegedly wrote while teaching at Dartmouth but couldn't publish because it would hurt his scholarly reputation, so he gave it to Spaulding who eventually modified / published it. Sydney Rigdon then, in turn, is believed to have had familiarity with this particular work - though how, precisely, I don't recall him explaining (but I was kind of skipping through the youtube video at that point, so I may have missed it or perhaps he deliberately didn't say because you have to by the book). Anyway, that's the supposed connection trail from Kircher to Joseph Smith.

The book also includes a very cute trigger warning: This book is not written for true-believing Mormons (TBMs). If you are a TBM and you do not yet have a robust support system outside of the Mormon church, do not read this book. If you continue to read it, you accept the responsibility of managing your immediate or eventual faith crisis in a way that will not result in harm to yourself or others.

My suspicion is that his book will be no more effective at dismantling the Book of Mormon than his whistleblower report was at taking down Ensign Peak.

 

[Zosimus]

On 4/19/2024 at 9:10 AM, The Nehor said:

Kircher thought he was translating hieroglyphs back then. He was wrong. I think this is somehow tied to the Book of Abraham or something. I didn’t focus much on the details and only read summaries.

Kircher didn't claim to be the translator of the Egyptian hieroglyphs, he claimed that was done by an Egyptian Jew named Nephi.

https://www.jasoncolavito.com/fragments-of-abenephius.html 

I haven't read the book, but it seems to echo some of the stuff discussed here in several places over the past few years.

My hypothesis is that Kircher truly had a manuscript that was translated from a reformed Egyptian script by an Egyptian Jew named Nephi

Edited April 20, 2024 by Zosimus

[blackstrap]

Always remember and never forget that, according to some, Joseph had access to the entire Library of Congress as well as any and all tomes published or unpublished in Europe or elsewhere before 1830 and maybe even after. Do your research ! ( insert correct emoji here )

[Zosimus]

6 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Always remember and never forget that, according to some, Joseph had access to the entire Library of Congress as well as any and all tomes published or unpublished in Europe or elsewhere before 1830 and maybe even after. Do your research ! ( insert correct emoji here )

Well the argument is that the Dartmouth library held many of these texts. Not quite the Library of Congress, but John Smith was the librarian at Dartmouth and also ran his own bookstore. It would be very unusual if John Smith and the students of Dartmouth and Moor's, including Hyrum, didn't know of Athanasius Kircher

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Kircher didn't claim to be the translator of the Egyptian hieroglyphs, he claimed that was done by an Egyptian Jew named Nephi.

https://www.jasoncolavito.com/fragments-of-abenephius.html 

I haven't read the book, but it seems to echo some of the stuff discussed here in several places over the past few years.

My hypothesis is that Kircher truly had a manuscript that was translated from a reformed Egyptian script by an Egyptian Jew named Nephi

What book? You can’t read it. It was never actually produced and the supposed source is lost. Kircher was brilliant in some ways but his scholarship was horribly sloppy.

[Zosimus]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What book? You can’t read it. It was never actually produced and the supposed source is lost. Kircher was brilliant in some ways but his scholarship was horribly sloppy.

Oedipus Aegyptiacus

It was in the Dartmouth Library. And we do have some supposed fragments from the Nephi manuscript, see the Jason Colavito link above

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Well the argument is that the Dartmouth library held many of these texts. Not quite the Library of Congress, but John Smith was the librarian at Dartmouth and also ran his own bookstore. It would be very unusual if John Smith and the students of Dartmouth and Moor's, including Hyrum, didn't know of Athanasius Kircher

Why would that be unusual? Athanasius Kircher was not a well-known figure. He was mostly forgotten until the late 1900s. None of his works had been translated into English in the early 19th century.

36 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

My hypothesis is that Kircher truly had a manuscript that was translated from a reformed Egyptian script by an Egyptian Jew named Nephi

Reformed Egyptian? The language that only the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations had? That went through almost a thousand years of change? And a guy in Egypt got a hold of a document in that language and translated it?

Uh-huh……

[Zosimus]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why would that be unusual? Athanasius Kircher was not a well-known figure. He was mostly forgotten until the late 1900s. None of his works had been translated into English in the early 19th century.

Um, no. Kircher was well known, especially to anyone that was familiar with the attempts to crack Egyptian hieroglyphs. It'd be a real stretch to suggest John Smith didn't know of Kircher. Smith read a number of languages, including the ones that Kircher wrote in

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Reformed Egyptian? The language that only the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations had? That went through almost a thousand years of change? And a guy in Egypt got a hold of a document in that language and translated it?

Uh-huh……

Ok, but that's not what I said. Kircher claimed he had a manuscript written by an Egyptian Jew (or an Arab) named Nephi. It supposedly contained a key to cracking Egyptian hieroglyphs. Call it whatever. I don't care much if you think it was a reformed Egyptian script on Kircher's Nephi manuscript, or not 

Edited April 20, 2024 by Zosimus

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

And we do have some supposed fragments from the Nephi manuscript, see the Jason Colavito link above

Jason Colavito is a certifiable nutcase.

He wrote the book “Cthulhu in World Mythology” From the description of said book:

Quote

Did our ancestors worship Great Cthulhu thousands of years ago?
We now have proof, and the truth can be told!

Denied by generations of scholars as mere fiction, astonishing new mythological and archaeological evidence proves that an advanced and ancient global cult spread the worship of the octopus-headed Great Cthulhu and his Old Ones to every corner of the prehistoric world—and gives a shockingly eldritch and miasmal cast to some of history’s most important mythological tales. Why is it that the Greeks feared a terrible monster with writhing tentacles? Why did peoples of the Pacific build cyclopean stone “Houses of the Octopus” to enact the periodic resurrection of that strange mollusk?

Profound and persuasive, Jason Colavito’s historical bombshell Cthulhu in World Mythology is the result of the author’s lifelong pursuit of the truth behind the widespread allusions to Cthulhu, Nyarlathotep, Azathoth, and the Old Ones in world literature. The author masterfully weaves together (in alphabetical order) ancient history, anthropology, archaeology, art history, astrology, astronomy, Atlantis theory, demonology, linguistics, literary theory, mythology, the occult, religious studies, and xenoarchaeology to tell the hidden history of early humanity.

Cthulu was invented by H.P. Lovecraft in the early 20th century yet this brain genius is telling us that the Cthulhu mythos pantheon of Great Old Ones the author invented to tell fun horror stories actually were worshipped by a real global worldwide network of cults. Nyarlathotep was said to have a thousand forms and each one had a cult IN THE FICTION so I guess thousands of Lovecraft’s degenerate cults.

This guy is a quack..

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

May Cthulu devour all your houses.

🐙

[Zosimus]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This guy is a quack..

My friend, Cthulhu in World Mythology is a parody of fringe history garbage. As Jason himself says: "I invite everyone to check out my forthcoming book Cthulhu in World Mythology, which now has an official publication date. My Lovecraftian parody of Chariots of the Gods and Ancient Aliens will be out in September from Atomic Overmind Press."

His MO is debunking the ancient aliens and grahm hancock types of the world. (source)

Colavito's work has largely focused on debunking "alternative archaeology"

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Cthulu was invented by H.P. Lovecraft in the early 20th century

Maybe read what he has actually written about H.P. Lovecraft before passing judgement 

https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/h-p-lovecraft-and-fringe-history

[Benjamin McGuire]

7 hours ago, Zosimus said:

It would be very unusual if John Smith and the students of Dartmouth and Moor's, including Hyrum, didn't know of Athanasius Kircher

This is simply wrong. There is only one publication in America that mentions Athanasius Kircher prior to 1850 - and that was a single non-descript reference in an essay published in the Princeton Review in July of 1830.

Why should we expect this to be unusual? You have a strange sense of what makes something likely or unusual.

I would argue just the opposite. That it would be highly unusual for John Smith or most of the students at Dartmouth to know of Kircher. It would be unthinkable for any of the students at Moor's school to know of Kircher.

But let's not forget that there is something else really out of place here. There is an effort among Mormon critics, in their attempts to string together coincidences (and to make them seem important) to conflate Moore's Indian Charity School with Dartmouth. Moor's school was not a part of the College. It was a boarding High School of sorts (originally intended for Native American education in an attempt to further proselyte the Indians). By the time Hyrum attends, less than 10 percent of the students enrolled in the grammar school were natives (and it was a grammar school). It was an independent entity from the college. In fact, part of the purpose in connecting the two was actually an attempt to try and connect the funding (to support the college and not the other way around), a thing that didn't happen until the early 20th century.

But we can see how this is worked in. The real origins of this idea as significant comes from Quinn, and his attempt to connect Joseph Smith with Nathaniel Wood. At least with Quinn, the problem isn't fatal to the argument. That is, we can see the ideas that Quinn is trying to give to Joseph Smith in other areas of the environment in which Joseph Smith lives. But this take on it - with Kirchner doesn't have that. There is no contemporary discussion of Kirchner in Joseph's environment. And this means that the likelihood of the student's at Dartmouth having any real exposure to him is virtually non-existent. Even so, it is significantly higher than any of the students at Moore's school (which in the early 19th century was not connected at all to Dartmouth).

 

This is just playing more games with history.

 

And all of this is about trying to make the argument of a connection plausible - it has to occur before we even begin to look at the similarities between the ideas. Which is why this sort of garbage is ignored by real historians and scholars.

[Zosimus]

42 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This is simply wrong. There is only one publication in America that mentions Athanasius Kircher prior to 1850 - and that was a single non-descript reference in an essay published in the Princeton Review in July of 1830.

Why should we expect this to be unusual? You have a strange sense of what makes something likely or unusual.

CFR on the non-descript reference being the only publication in America to mention Kircher before 1850.

I respect you, but you seem to know a lot about these things that are so usual that its hardly worth discussing. Its kinda like that time when you ribbed me for being interested in Maroni, only to find out you have a copy of Falarti's book on Kedah Kingship. Because certainly it's a usual thing to have the book that discusses Merong (also Maroni) on your bookshelf. 

Its the same for Kircher. BYU buys up enough Kircher manuscripts to become one of the largest holders of Kircher manuscripts, but of course, its usual. Kircher's writings certainly couldn't be of interest to anyone. I'd assume you'd also researched references to Kircher before I mentioned it here. Or should we trust this conclusion that you seemingly reached over the last couple hours?

Could you know this you've already researched it yourself? Because maybe Kircher's Nephi is unusual enough to be a thing to research, or a topic worth researching? I find it really strange that so many scholars try to pass this off as a nothing burger, yet they seem to know quite a lot about it.

[Zosimus]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But let's not forget that there is something else really out of place here. There is an effort among Mormon critics, in their attempts to string together coincidences (and to make them seem important) to conflate Moore's Indian Charity School with Dartmouth. Moor's school was not a part of the College. It was a boarding High School of sorts (originally intended for Native American education in an attempt to further proselyte the Indians). By the time Hyrum attends, less than 10 percent of the students enrolled in the grammar school were natives (and it was a grammar school). It was an independent entity from the college. In fact, part of the purpose in connecting the two was actually an attempt to try and connect the funding (to support the college and not the other way around), a thing that didn't happen until the early 20th century.

Yeah, and the MTC is not a part of BYU. This is not a convincing deflection from the fact that the Smith's were living within miles of Dartmouth College. Again, you seem to know a lot about something that isn't worth knowing. I can understand you might be interested in this to counter the critics. But that's a weak reason. Why not just accept, its interesting

Quote

But we can see how this is worked in. The real origins of this idea as significant comes from Quinn, and his attempt to connect Joseph Smith with Nathaniel Wood. At least with Quinn, the problem isn't fatal to the argument. That is, we can see the ideas that Quinn is trying to give to Joseph Smith in other areas of the environment in which Joseph Smith lives. But this take on it - with Kirchner doesn't have that. There is no contemporary discussion of Kirchner in Joseph's environment. And this means that the likelihood of the student's at Dartmouth having any real exposure to him is virtually non-existent. Even so, it is significantly higher than any of the students at Moore's school (which in the early 19th century was not connected at all to Dartmouth).

 

This is just playing more games with history.

 

And all of this is about trying to make the argument of a connection plausible - it has to occur before we even begin to look at the similarities between the ideas. Which is why this sort of garbage is ignored by real historians and scholars.

If its garbage, then let's open the Kircher collection at BYU and let everyone see

[Benjamin McGuire]

33 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

CFR on the non-descript reference being the only publication in America to mention Kircher before 1850.

Sure.

The problem with digital archives is that they provide details without context. That link is to the MOA digital archives. I can't of course say with absolutely certainty that the archives is missing a publication, but what I can say with some certainty is that if it is missed, then it wasn't significant. And this is the problem.

36 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

I respect you, but you seem to know a lot about these things that are so usual that its hardly worth discussing. Its kinda like that time when you ribbed me for being interested in Maroni, only to find out you have a copy of Falarti's book on Kedah Kingship. Because certainly it's a usual thing to have the book that discusses Merong (also Maroni) on your bookshelf. 

My personal print library is around 15,000 volumes. Most of these are in the areas of religion, philosophy, history, and social research. My digital library in these areas (copies that I own and have immediate access to) is about ten times that. I maintain a number of access accounts to digital research libraries. So, my ability to access material is much, much larger than that.

More importantly, I have spent decades working with digital texts and physical texts. I have a strong background in the statistical measurements of texts and what those measurements mean. As a technologist by profession, I have a lot of experience working with search engine algorithms. I know how to get the information I need from digital collections quickly.

One major problem here (and I first addressed this in publication more than a decade ago) is that digital archives make very poor tools for establishing parallels and points of connection. They tend to conceal rather than to reveal parallels and real points of connection. In the other direction they work very well - they are very useful for providing negative checks against claims of connection or textual relationships. After decades of dealing with parallels in a broad way, you come to the realization that there is a lot more coincidence out there than there is useful stuff - especially when there is no specific criteria being used for evaluation purposes. Some time ago, when I wrote an essay responding to the claim that The Late War was a significant source for the Book of Mormon. In the original claim, there was an additional claim that Jane Austen borrowed material from an obscure novel titled The Officer's Daughter. I made this comment about it (I am not going to go through the whole argument):

Quote

There is no evidence that this work was ever read by Jane Austen. In fact, just this year, Cambridge University Press released The Cambridge Companion to ‘Pride and Prejudice‘, in which we get details about the text, its narrative and characters, its philosophy, its composition and publication, even its historical background and literary context. Nowhere in that volume will we find a reference to Miss Walsh’s The Officer’s Daughter. For an author who wasn’t very “influenced by her literary culture,” an awful lot has been written about that culture and its influence. We actually know a great deal about Jane Austen and her literary influences. Part of this is due to the fact that literary scholars and historians have been discussing and detailing her achievements in terms of the relationship she had with prior literature since the mid-twentieth century (really beginning with the work of F. W. Bradbrook and Jocelyn Harris). For Austen, this interaction was often very deliberate – we know this not just from her books, but from the many letters that she wrote which detailed her own reading and re-reading. She tells us who her favorite authors were and why. And this is why we might be a bit startled to find out how this book, which she apparently never read, was in fact the most significant influence on her own writing.

I have an incredibly high dose of skepticism for the sorts of claims about connections - and for good reason.

44 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

If its garbage, then let's open the Kircher collection at BYU and let everyone see

I don't have any problem with this. But then I don't have any say in the matter.

There is always something problematic about demands like this because the goal post always gets moved. We had the Spaulding Manuscript. Until it was found. Then it was another unknown manuscript (despite the fact that we can with certainty prove that most of the statements made about that manuscript were fabricated). So we open that up, and it when it doesn't show anything, then what? We move on to the next even wilder theory?

46 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Yeah, and the MTC is not a part of BYU. This is not a convincing deflection from the fact that the Smith's were living within miles of Dartmouth College. Again, you seem to know a lot about something that isn't worth knowing. I can understand you might be interested in this to counter the critics. But that's a weak reason. Why not just accept, its interesting

You need to read the history. Moore's school wasn't affiliated at all with Dartmouth until much, much later.

I went to BYU. I read extensively in their old history books. I probably didn't get through a single percent of that material. You make this seem like everyone was reading everything that was there. Not only wouldn't this happen, it apparently didn't happen in this case because none of this enters into what we have of the public consciousness. It isn't there.

These claims aren't interesting. They only become interesting to people who think that they may be able to support their personal theories with this kind of information. But it doesn't work that way.

 

[Zosimus]

12 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The problem with digital archives is that they provide details without context. That link is to the MOA digital archives. I can't of course say with absolutely certainty that the archives is missing a publication, but what I can say with some certainty is that if it is missed, then it wasn't significant. And this is the problem.

Humboldt mentions Kircher in his Researches, Concerning the Institutions & Monuments of the Ancient. Its a real stretch to claim that Humboldt's 1814 publication on the origins of Native Americans wasn't known to Americans. Humboldt even references Kircher's Oedipus Aegyptiacus. Humboldt also references Kircher's Obeliscus Pamphilius, which contains fragments from the Nephi manuscript. This was published in 1814. If we want something closer to publication of the Book of Mormon, there is an article on the Aborigines of America published in The American Monthly Magazine, published in May 1829: 

Note the references to Egyptians planting colonies on the west coast of America, in 1829. That seems significant, since it was Kircher's view that Egyptians had planted colonies from Egypt and numerous points east. This is likely where Humboldt gets his Mexican Buddha from.

22 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

My personal print library is around 15,000 volumes. Most of these are in the areas of religion, philosophy, history, and social research. My digital library in these areas (copies that I own and have immediate access to) is about ten times that. I maintain a number of access accounts to digital research libraries. So, my ability to access material is much, much larger than that.

More importantly, I have spent decades working with digital texts and physical texts. I have a strong background in the statistical measurements of texts and what those measurements mean. As a technologist by profession, I have a lot of experience working with search engine algorithms. I know how to get the information I need from digital collections quickly.

I don't doubt your expertise in this field, but there can be no doubt that Kircher was known to Americans before 1830. A five minute search revealed a number of references to Kircher in American publications between 1800 and 1830. The links I shared above are just two. 

Quote

One major problem here (and I first addressed this in publication more than a decade ago) is that digital archives make very poor tools for establishing parallels and points of connection. They tend to conceal rather than to reveal parallels and real points of connection. In the other direction they work very well - they are very useful for providing negative checks against claims of connection or textual relationships. After decades of dealing with parallels in a broad way, you come to the realization that there is a lot more coincidence out there than there is useful stuff - especially when there is no specific criteria being used for evaluation purposes. Some time ago, when I wrote an essay responding to the claim that The Late War was a significant source for the Book of Mormon. In the original claim, there was an additional claim that Jane Austen borrowed material from an obscure novel titled The Officer's Daughter. I made this comment about it (I am not going to go through the whole argument):

OK but two Kircher books, one containing fragments of the Nephi manuscript, were referenced in 1814 in a book detailing the ruins of South America. There's no doubt that a scholar like Mitchill (who incidentally wrote the foreward to The Late War) would have been familiar with this book. It was very likely on his shelf, and he probably lectured from it, based on his writings that echo some of the material. I won't get into that here though. 

33 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is always something problematic about demands like this because the goal post always gets moved. We had the Spaulding Manuscript. Until it was found. Then it was another unknown manuscript (despite the fact that we can with certainty prove that most of the statements made about that manuscript were fabricated). So we open that up, and it when it doesn't show anything, then what? We move on to the next even wilder theory?

Speaking of Spaulding manuscripts, Solomon Spaulding's unpublished Romance of Celes does have some interesting similarities to Kircher's writings describing his vision of the cosmos. But we can discuss that when it is published, as I understand the author of the book mentioned in the OP will be doing. FWIW, i've skimmed through his book and nothing really stood out as new or convincing. Most of his stuff is Behrens and Broadhurst in a zoomer wrapper. But I am looking forward to reading his research on the complete Romance of Celes.

36 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You need to read the history. Moore's school wasn't affiliated at all with Dartmouth until much, much later.

I went to BYU. I read extensively in their old history books. I probably didn't get through a single percent of that material. You make this seem like everyone was reading everything that was there. Not only wouldn't this happen, it apparently didn't happen in this case because none of this enters into what we have of the public consciousness. It isn't there.

These claims aren't interesting. They only become interesting to people who think that they may be able to support their personal theories with this kind of information. But it doesn't work that way.

I'd disagree John Smith's lectures didn't enter into the public consciousness. Just look the publications of his students. View of the Hebrews and Manuscript Found. Its interesting

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

I'd disagree John Smith's lectures didn't enter into the public consciousness. Just look the publications of his students. View of the Hebrews and Manuscript Found.

And I'd disagree with that disagreement. Smith's 1778 lectures on natural philosophy, delivered to the junior class that year (which did not include Solomon Spalding or Ethan Smith), were largely unremarkable. Which was the case with most of Smith's output.

Most of his brief lecture regarding "the first peopling of America" was taken from Daniel Neal's The History of New-England, to which he added some of his own thoughts.

E.g.,

"It appears very probable to me that this new world was peopled both from Africa, and Asia (the north part). It is almost certain the aboriginal inhabitants of America are not the descendants of Jews, Christians, or Mahometans, because no trace of their religions have ever been found among them, nor had they ever heard the name of Moses, Christ, or Mahomet, till they were acquainted with the Europeans. . . ."

"It is probable China joins to the Continent of America. If this is the case, we may suppose that some of our Indian tribes came from that part of the world."

Professor Smith only lectured on this subject because the regular instructor, Bezaleel Woodward, was on leave that year. There's no indication that he ever did so again or that these lectures influenced future Dartmouth students Spalding and Smith.

What we can say with some certainty, I think, is that Smith's views on the peopling of the Americas don't make him a very likely candidate to be one of the authors of the Book of Mormon, as Lars Neilsen tries to argue.

Edited April 20, 2024 by Nevo

[Zosimus]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You need to read the history. Moore's school wasn't affiliated at all with Dartmouth until much, much later.

I feel this deserves a separate comment, because it is such a strange distortion of history.

Dartmouth started out as Moor’s Charity School. Occam went to England and preached to raise funds for Moors but Wheelock instead used it to open Dartmouth. Moors was not only affiliated with Dartmouth early on, Dartmouth exists because of Moors.

also, John Smith was appointed preceptor at Moors. He lectured the students at Moors in the Dartmouth cathedral every Saturday. He preached to the students at Moors in the cathedral every Sunday. He was a professor at Dartmouth. It’s a weird thing to try and frame the relationship between Moors and Dartmouth as “not affiliated at all until much later”. Moors existed before Dartmouth. They were both founded by Wheelock. The teachers at Moors were professors at Dartmouth. They used the same lecture hall. 

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I went to BYU. I read extensively in their old history books. I probably didn't get through a single percent of that material. You make this seem like everyone was reading everything that was there. Not only wouldn't this happen, it apparently didn't happen in this case because none of this enters into what we have of the public consciousness. It isn't there.

Hanover in the 1810s was not BYU. It was a small school in a frontier town. Everyone knew everyone. For example, Joseph Smith had his leg operated on by a doctor at Dartmouth, his daughter was a classmate of Hyrum. I don’t have a reference but I’d also assume the library at Dartmouth in 1810 was smaller than the Harold B Lee

if the students of Dartmouth and Moors are seated in the same chapel to listen to the same lectures from the same doctor of divinity, I don’t see how you can argue there’s no affiliation, especially since both schools were founded by the same person. Help me understand why you’re not the one bending history to fit your theories 

Edited April 20, 2024 by Zosimus

[Zosimus]

3 minutes ago, Nevo said:

And I'd disagree with that disagreement. Smith's 1778 lectures on natural philosophy, delivered to the junior class that year (which did not include Solomon Spalding or Ethan Smith), were largely unremarkable. Which was the case with most of Smith's output.

Most of his brief lecture regarding "the first peopling of America" was taken from Daniel Neal's The History of New-England, to which he added some of his own thoughts.

E.g.,

"It appears very probable to me that this new world was peopled both from Africa, and Asia (the north part). It is almost certain the aboriginal inhabitants of America are not the descendants of Jews, Christians, or Mahometans, because no trace of their religions have ever been found among them, nor had they ever heard the name of Moses, Christ, or Mahomet, till they were acquainted with the Europeans. . . ."

"It is probable China joins to the Continent of America. If this is the case, we may suppose that some of our Indian tribes came from that part of the world."

Professor Smith only lectured on this subject because the regular instructor, Bezaleel Woodward, was on leave that year. There's no indication that he ever did so again or that these lectures influenced future Dartmouth students Spalding and Smith.

For a topic that is of no interest, that is interesting. Do you have a link to the material in Neal? I’m certainly interested to know Smiths sources for his lectures 

[Nevo]

On 4/20/2024 at 9:31 AM, Zosimus said:

For a topic that is of no interest, that is interesting. Do you have a link to the material in Neal? I’m certainly interested to know Smiths sources for his lectures 

I added the link.

 

Edited April 27, 2024 by Nevo

[Zosimus]

45 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I added the link. Smith's lecture is attached for comparison.

Its no doubt the source for most of Smiths material on the peopling of the Americas. I've been unconvinced that Smith's comments were the source for the Lamanites in America narrative because Smith had lectured that the Americas were not populated by Jews or as he put it, people that knew the name of Moses. Now I see Smith obviously lifted that straight from Neal.

But I'm not convinced the author of the gold plates (or the translator of the Book of Mormon) was even writing about the Americas. The most widely discussed theory in the decade before the Book of Mormon was published was that the former inhabitants of the Americas sprang from Asia. Even Smith closes the lecture: "Before I conclude this letter, I would just observe that it is probable [that] China joins to the continent of America. If this is the case, we may suppose that some of our Indian tribes came from that part of the world." 

This is why I agree that the things being taught at Dartmouth were in the public consciousness, even if they came from The History of New England and even if the claim was that South Americans were Malays or Chinese and North Americans were Tartars or Scythians. The theories were in the public consciousness.

Edited April 20, 2024 by Zosimus

[Nevo]

51 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

I feel this deserves a separate comment, because it is such a strange distortion of history.

Dartmouth started out as Moor’s Charity School. Occam went to England and preached to raise funds for Moors but Wheelock instead used it to open Dartmouth. Moors was not only affiliated with Dartmouth early on, Dartmouth exists because of Moors.

also, John Smith was appointed preceptor at Moors. He lectured the students at Moors in the Dartmouth cathedral every Saturday. He preached to the students at Moors in the cathedral every Sunday. He was a professor at Dartmouth. It’s a weird thing to try and frame the relationship between Moors and Dartmouth as “not affiliated at all until much later”. Moors existed before Dartmouth. They were both founded by Wheelock. The teachers at Moors were professors at Dartmouth. They used the same lecture hall. 

Hanover in the 1810s was not BYU. It was a small school in a frontier town. Everyone knew everyone. For example, Joseph Smith had his leg operated on by a doctor at Dartmouth, his daughter was a classmate of Hyrum. I don’t have a reference but I’d also assume the library at Dartmouth in 1810 was smaller than the Harold B Lee

if the students of Dartmouth and Moors are seated in the same chapel to listen to the same lectures from the same doctor of divinity, I don’t see how you can argue there’s no affiliation, especially since both schools were founded by the same person. Help me understand why you’re not the one bending history to fit your theories 

I spent my Christmas holiday fact-checking Behrens's "Dartmouth Arminianism" article, so I feel like I'm an expert on this now

Yes, Moor's Charity School and Dartmouth College were certainly affiliated and shared the same campus. Typically, the preceptors of Moor's school were recent graduates of Dartmouth, not Dartmouth faculty. For example, the preceptor when Hyrum attended was Joseph Perry, class of 1811. He was preceptor from 1811–1818.

John Smith was preceptor of Moor's for a year following his graduation (1773–74), but left that position to join the "faculty" of Dartmouth as a tutor in the fall of 1774. The faculty at the time consisted of Eleazar Wheelock and 3 tutors: his son John and sons-in-law Sylvanus Ripley and Bezaleel Woodward.

Smith died in 1809 but did have some connections to the Joseph Smith family. His son-in-law, Cyrus Perkins, was one of the physicians who treated Joseph Jr.'s leg, and John Smith's son, Horace Henry Smith (b. 1807), attended Moor's school with Hyrum.
 

 

[Nevo]

50 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

The theories were in the public consciousness.

Yes, those theories were, at least among the educated. Hence, my statement that they were "unremarkable." Maybe I should have used the word "conventional," because the theories themselves are interesting.