How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass

[Benjamin McGuire]

8 hours ago, Zosimus said:

It is trivia, because we've already established that Kircher was mentioned in American publications before 1850. I included Humboldt in the list because he had American distributors and was so widely read. In Joseph Smith's time, Humboldt was known as the second Columbus because most of the knowledge collected on America before Humboldt was inaccessible (source). Was Diego de Landa even available in English in 1830? 

Again, this is all meaningless trivia. It's entire purpose is to cloud the issue - that you cannot demonstrate any connections - so you try and make a circumstantial argument that over-emphasizes the things that are important to your theory.

Let's face it, 10 editions is nothing in early America (where editions were usually quite small - with the state of printing presses, printing was much closer to our print on demand industry now). We can find lots of texts that by these conditions should have been well known to practically everyone in America. This doesn't mean a whole lot for the arguments that you raise. It is all a red herring.

The question you ask about Diego de Landa is revealing. He wasn't available in English in 1830. And what Landa tells us is that we have discussions about American hieroglyphs hundreds of years before Humboldt is even born. You have this very narrow focus on a specific context because that is all that is of interest to you and to your theory. This is a symptom of parallelomania. It encourages you to avoid dealing with alternative explanations or contextualizing what it is you find.

8 hours ago, Zosimus said:

My point is Buchanan was familiar with China Illustrata. Since he references it, I'd assume he either read it or was familiar with it. My sense is that Kircher's China Illustrata supported Buchanan's own ideas about ancient cryptic Indian texts containing spiritual truths waiting to be translated. It was a widespread idea amongst orientalists of the time. This is a good read.

And the problem is that while Buchanan may be familiar with China Illustrata, he doesn't actually share any of its details. This idea of ancient cryptic texts isn't unique to Kircher. There is a very broad history of this idea - going back into the Old Testament itself (consider the Book of the Law discovered by Hilkiah when they were renovating the temple in Jerusalem in 622 BCE - the discovery that kicked off the Josian reform). The book on Orientalism is interesting. The problem is in assuming that Orientalism is the only context in which we find ideas about ancient cryptic texts. These other contexts are just as useful in explaining the Book of Mormon (if that was our desire). Orientalism isn't any better with its explanation than these other contexts.

8 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Again, I believe Joseph Smith had everything needed to complete the translation of the gold plates without having to depend on a Spaulding manuscript. What Dartmouth demonstrates is just how early these narratives were in circulation around the Smiths. If both Spaulding and Ethan Smith go on to write books about the peopling of the Americas, we shouldn't be terribly surprised that a text like the Book of Mormon is published in 1830. Manuscript Found, View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon come from the same environment. That doesn't mean they were all written by Dr. John Smith.

No. Material at Dartmouth explains the availability. It does not provide any evidence that "these narratives were in circulation around the Smiths." These are very different issues - they shouldn't ever be conflated.

8 hours ago, Zosimus said:

"The Chinese books say that there are three sects in the world, as they call their kingdoms and the neighboring ones, since they know very little about the other places. The first sect is that of literati. The second is the Sciequia. The third is called Lancu. All the Chinese and their neighbors who use Chinese characters for writing-follow one of these. This is true of the peoples of Japan, Korea, Tonchin, and the Cochin China, of whom we shall talk later. These three sects correspond in nearly all respects to the three social classes who composed the ancient Egyptian kingdom, that is, the priests, those who knew the hieroglyphic writing, and the common people."

This is completely compatible with Kircher's view of a post-flood immigration to China from Egypt (in fact, of a post flood immigration to everywhere from Egypt). It still puts all of these migrations thousands of years prior to Lehi. Interestingly enough (in this context), the Book of Mormon doesn't distinguish these three social classes, does it.

8 hours ago, Zosimus said:

According to Kircher, there were 6th century BC migrations of exiled Egyptians/Ethiopians following the invasion of Cambyses. They entered India and Southeast Asia and found the ruins of other worshippers of Hermes, Bacchus and Osiris had already been established there. They "renewed" the worship of those gods in India, and into the farthest orient.

But, of course, none of this has anything to do with a migration to America. It certainly isn't this group that crosses the Bering Strait and colonizes the Americas. It's like we are reading two different texts almost ...

9 hours ago, Zosimus said:

For example, Buchanan references China Illustrata. From the text:

That's not a quote from Buchanan - its from a modern translation of China Illustrata. How does Buchanan reference this?

9 hours ago, Zosimus said:

OK but you failed to read Kircher's book and are now basing your conclusion - that my arguments are problematic - based on your misunderstanding of Kircher's ideas. There's not the contradiction that you suggest. Not unlike the Egyptian exiles in the 6th century BC, the exiled Lehites also found the remnants of a previous civilization that had been established following the confusion of languages. The Jaredites had proceeded them there, and upon discovering it, there's a sort of renewal of their civilization.

But this isn't a unique storyline to Kircher. And there is this curious element of parallelomania that we see in your comments. Kircher doesn't mention the Tower of Babel, or the subsequent confusion of languages. So to bring it up here in this way is to try and inappropriately enhance the similarities that you think are there. Then there are the other differences right? The Jaredites in the Book of Mormon aren't simply remnants of a civilization - they are contemporary with the Nephites (contemporary enough that at least one Jaredite gives his story to the Nephites in person). The Jaredite narrative swirls around a text. And so on. These are not the same things at all. It is only by using such broad generalizations of the narrative that you can even start to claim the parallel. Some years ago, I published a piece with a set of rules that apply to parallelomania. Here are several of them (these are not mine - I source them in the essay):

Quote

 

• Any method of comparison which lists and underscores similarities and suppresses or minimizes differences is necessarily misleading.
• Parallels are too readily susceptible of manipulation. Superficial resemblances may be made to appear as of the essence.
• Parallel-hunting is predicated on the use of lowest common denominators. Virtually all literature, even the most original, can be reduced to such terms, and thereby shown to be unoriginal. So viewed, Mark Twain’s The Prince and the Pauper plagiarizes ****ens’ David Copperfield. Both deal with England, both describe the [Page 80]slums of London, both see their hero exalted beyond his original station. To regard any two books in this light, however, is to ignore every factor that differentiates one man’s thoughts, reactions and literary expression from another’s.
• Parallel columns operate piecemeal. They wrench phrases and passages out of context. A product of the imagination is indivisible. It depends on totality of effect. To remove details from their setting is to falsify them.
• Parallels fail to indicate the proportion which the purportedly borrowed material bears to the sum total of the source, or to the whole of the new work. Without such information a just appraisal is impossible.
• The practitioners of the technique resort too often to sleight of hand. They employ language, not to record facts or to describe things accurately, but as props in a rhetorical hocus-pocus which, by describing different things in identical words, appears to make them magically alike.

 

The idea of the confusion of languages is a central issue - because Kircher's whole argument is based on the premise that the languages of Egypt and China were effectively the same thing. This is why he ignores the whole Babel story - it doesn't relate to his theory. For you to bring it up here in this way is to engage in the 'rhetorical hocus-pocus'. The Nephites didn't consider themselves exiles - at least not until after they had to leave their promised land (the land of their first inheritance, which was in the New World, and not the Old World). There certainly isn't a renewal of the Jaredite civilization (at least not in the way that Kircher describes it). What you are providing here is parallelomania. It is not a legitimate comparison. The conclusions you come to are not supported by the evidence - but this isn't really a surprise - because you start with the conclusion and then hunt for the evidence. One of the rules I left out from that list: "Parallel-hunters do not, as a rule, set out to be truthful and impartial. They are hell-bent on proving a point."

9 hours ago, Zosimus said:

I've said before, I'm not so interested in the historicity question. It could be a fiction, or a history, or a combination of fiction and history. I dunno. My idea is a simple one. Read the Book of Mormon as if it were a text written on a Biblical isle of the sea. Don't force the gold plates to cross the Pacific ocean to Chile in 600 BC. If we keep it where the authors believed themselves to be, and don't make assumptions about where they were, we remove the burden we have put on the translator of the gold plates to provide correct translations of words like iron and elephants, the question of Book of Mormon historicity becomes no more relevant than the question of the Book of Esther historicity. 

But you are interested in the historicity question. You can't simply deny that you are interested it in, and then engage the question directly. There are several problems here - 1: in the bible, the phrase "isle of the sea" isn't understood as literally as you understand it. One of the most popular interpretations of the phrase "isles of the sea" in use in the early 19th century comes from Isaac Newton:

Quote

By the earth, the Jews understood the great continent of all Asia and Africa, to which they had access by land: and by the Isles of the sea, they understood the places to which they sailed by sea, particularly all Europe: and hence in this Prophecy, the earth and sea are put for the nations of the Greek and Latin Empires.

I think that there is a disconnect with this sort of technical definition that you want to use here. It seems quite likely (especially given this sort of 19th century understanding - but it isn't an understanding that is terribly out of place in the original contexts) that the Nephites could understand the Americas as being on the Isles of the Sea, or France, or really any location that wasn't a part of Asia and Africa. You are making assumptions about the text.

And this is before we start to have the discussion about "correct translations." If all we have is a translation, then the idea of "correct translation" has to precede all of this - because all of this is dependent on an interpretation of the translation. Your idea isn't really that simple because it seems to entail a whole host of assumptions (many of which, I think, I disagree with).

9 hours ago, Zosimus said:

It means, Mitchill very well could have read the translations of hieroglyphs attributed to an Egyptian Jew named Nephi.

No. This is an impossibility. Why? Because the idea of an Egyptian Jew named Nephi is present only in unpublished manuscripts by Kircher. In his published material, there is no Egyptian Jew named Nephi. There is only Abenephius the Arab. To quote Daniel Stolzenberg:

Quote

One fact, however, left a vivid impression in Peiresc’s mind, for he mentioned it in at least two letters: Kircher possessed an Arabic treatise “concerning the manner of interpreting and deciphering the hieroglyphic letters of the Egyptian obelisks,” composed, as he would soon learn, by a certain “Rabbi Barachias Nephi of Babylon.” Kircher promised to send him a sample of the Latin translation that he was preparing.

These letters between Peiresc and Kircher are the only references we have to Rabbit Barachias Nephi. In Kircher's published material, the figure is know as Abenephius the Arab - again from Stolzenberg:

Quote

By the time excerpts from the manuscript saw print in Kircher’s works, the author’s name had been transformed first to Barachias Abenephi and then to Abenephius the Arab, by which name he is conventionally known today.

Those letters were not available to any of your list of people in that chain between Kircher and Joseph Smith. There is no parallel here.

I have a copy of Stolzenberg.

I have acquired three other books that discuss Kircher (the first two have discussions about the correspondence with Peiresc):

The Stars of Galileo Galilei and the Universal Knowledge of Athanasius Kircher.

This one is interesting because it has the longest discussion of the letters. It includes the letters explaining why Kircher cannot publish his translation of the text.

A Study of the Life and Works of Athanasius Kircher, 'German Incredibilis'

Ideography and Chinese Language Theory: A History

This one only has a single chapter on Kircher, but it is a fascinating chapter.

In the long run, we get back to the problem of historicity which you suggest is not your concern. But when you try to make it seem important that there could have been this Nephi, who really was a compiler of Hebrew, Coptic and Egyptian texts - that is an argument that only matters when we are trying to establish something akin to historicity. Without that impulse, it has no value for this discussion.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Anyone else actually read Spaulding's Manuscript Found?  I did a lot of years ago.  Not exactly the most riveting read.

Quote

"May God bless your soul," says one of our mariners, "what would you have us do who have had the woeful luck not to get mates to cheer our poor souls and warm our bodies? Methinks I could pick out a healthy, plum lass from the copper colored tribe, and that by washing and scrubbing her fore and aft and upon the larboard and starboard sides, she would become a wholesome bedfellow."

Obviously where we got the idea of washings and annointings, amirite?

Honestly, all of the brain power that tries to link Spaulding to the BoM has always smelled like blinder-wearingly biased desperation to me.  It's about as convincing as the 'adieu' criticism.

Edited April 25, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Anyone else actually read Spaulding's Manuscript Found?  I did a lot of years ago.  Not exactly the most riveting read.

Obviously where we got the idea of washings and annointings, amirite?

Honestly, all of the brain power that tries to link Spaulding to the BoM has always smelled like blinder-wearingly biased desperation to me.  It's about as convincing as the 'adieu' criticism.

It's not like it's totally unconvincing after reading the wiki about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spalding–Rigdon_theory_of_Book_of_Mormon_authorship#:~:text=The Spalding–Rigdon theory of,book Mormonism Unvailed [sic].

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's not like it's totally unconvincing after reading the wiki about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spalding–Rigdon_theory_of_Book_of_Mormon_authorship#:~:text=The Spalding–Rigdon theory of,book Mormonism Unvailed [sic].

Have you read it though?

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Have you read it though?

Not that I can remember, just read over it a little, no in depth reading.

[webbles]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not that I can remember, just read over it a little, no in depth reading.

If you want to read it, it is available at https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/manuscript-found-complete-original-spaulding-manuscript.  That also includes some preliminary discussion about it but the book itself starts around page 33 of the pdf.

The book is kind of comprised of 4 different parts.  The first part is the lost Romans finding themselves in America and interacting with the natives.  The second part is them (the Romans) traveling west, over the Appalachians, and meeting another tribe of natives (the Ohons).  The third part is learning about Baska or Lobaska, who is a historical figure to the Ohons and helped them become more civilized.  The last part is about a historical event that occurred sometime after Lobaska died but before the Ohons formed (since it is about the two tribes that Lobaska originally helped).  This part is romance/war story.

There are some similarities (Lobaska had 4 sons and came from the west, there is a war story, people from the Old World landed on the New World, there are more civilized tribes vs uncivilized tribes) but not enough to overcome the differences, in my mind.

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, webbles said:

If you want to read it, it is available at https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/manuscript-found-complete-original-spaulding-manuscript.  That also includes some preliminary discussion about it but the book itself starts around page 33 of the pdf.

The book is kind of comprised of 4 different parts.  The first part is the lost Romans finding themselves in America and interacting with the natives.  The second part is them (the Romans) traveling west, over the Appalachians, and meeting another tribe of natives (the Ohons).  The third part is learning about Baska or Lobaska, who is a historical figure to the Ohons and helped them become more civilized.  The last part is about a historical event that occurred sometime after Lobaska died but before the Ohons formed (since it is about the two tribes that Lobaska originally helped).  This part is romance/war story.

There are some similarities (Lobaska had 4 sons and came from the west, there is a war story, people from the Old World landed on the New World, there are more civilized tribes vs uncivilized tribes) but not enough to overcome the differences, in my mind.

Great, probably over my head, but thanks!

 

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, webbles said:

If you want to read it, it is available at https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/manuscript-found-complete-original-spaulding-manuscript.  That also includes some preliminary discussion about it but the book itself starts around page 33 of the pdf.

The book is kind of comprised of 4 different parts.  The first part is the lost Romans finding themselves in America and interacting with the natives.  The second part is them (the Romans) traveling west, over the Appalachians, and meeting another tribe of natives (the Ohons).  The third part is learning about Baska or Lobaska, who is a historical figure to the Ohons and helped them become more civilized.  The last part is about a historical event that occurred sometime after Lobaska died but before the Ohons formed (since it is about the two tribes that Lobaska originally helped).  This part is romance/war story.

There are some similarities (Lobaska had 4 sons and came from the west, there is a war story, people from the Old World landed on the New World, there are more civilized tribes vs uncivilized tribes) but not enough to overcome the differences, in my mind.

There are plenty of stories, folktales etc that follow those general story lines, especially enlightenedment coming from the west.  The “four sons” tidbit is probably the closest, but easily could be a coincidence given how many sons people typically have.

[webbles]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are plenty of stories, folktales etc that follow those general story lines, especially enlightenedment coming from the west.  The “four sons” tidbit is probably the closest, but easily could be a coincidence given how many sons people typically have.

The 4 sons have a reason.  Lobaska first meets one tribe and educates them and civilizes them.  Then he meets with their enemies (across the river) and also educates them and civilizes them.  He then gives them rules (kind of like Moses) and one of the rules is that his first son will be the political leader and his third son will be the religious leader of the first tribe.  His second son is the political leader and his fourth son is the religious leader of the second tribe.  One of the rules is also that any sons and daughters of those sons must marry within the corresponding tribe and this is what causes the war in the 4th part.  A male descendant of the second tribe falls in love with a female descendant of the first tribe.  They want to marry but Lobaska's rules won't allow it.  So they break the rule.  The second tribe is ok with it but the first tribe is angry.  The first tribe attacks to "rescue" the princess.

Edited April 25, 2024 by webbles

[Zosimus]

On 4/25/2024 at 8:40 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Again, this is all meaningless trivia. It's entire purpose is to cloud the issue - that you cannot demonstrate any connections - so you try and make a circumstantial argument that over-emphasizes the things that are important to your theory.

Let's face it, 10 editions is nothing in early America (where editions were usually quite small - with the state of printing presses, printing was much closer to our print on demand industry now). We can find lots of texts that by these conditions should have been well known to practically everyone in America. This doesn't mean a whole lot for the arguments that you raise. It is all a red herring.

The question you ask about Diego de Landa is revealing. He wasn't available in English in 1830. And what Landa tells us is that we have discussions about American hieroglyphs hundreds of years before Humboldt is even born. You have this very narrow focus on a specific context because that is all that is of interest to you and to your theory. This is a symptom of parallelomania. It encourages you to avoid dealing with alternative explanations or contextualizing what it is you find.

ikr, this trivia about Humboldt has become a convenient way for you to avoid the CFR. I ask the question about Landa because he wasn't available to those discussing American hieroglyphs in the 1810s. Humboldt was accessible. My point is Humboldt references Kircher because Kircher had written about Mexican hieroglyphs much earlier. For example, from Kircher's Egyptian Oedipus:

On 4/25/2024 at 8:40 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

And the problem is that while Buchanan may be familiar with China Illustrata, he doesn't actually share any of its details. This idea of ancient cryptic texts isn't unique to Kircher. There is a very broad history of this idea - going back into the Old Testament itself (consider the Book of the Law discovered by Hilkiah when they were renovating the temple in Jerusalem in 622 BCE - the discovery that kicked off the Josian reform). The book on Orientalism is interesting. The problem is in assuming that Orientalism is the only context in which we find ideas about ancient cryptic texts. These other contexts are just as useful in explaining the Book of Mormon (if that was our desire). Orientalism isn't any better with its explanation than these other contexts.

You are moving the goalposts again. Your original comment was that it wasn't possible for anyone to mention Kircher in an American publication. Well, Buchanan mentions Kircher in an American publication which was printed and distributed in upstate New York in 1809.  It was in the Dartmouth Library as early as 1825, likely earlier. I think we've exhausted this topic. Moving on.

On 4/25/2024 at 8:40 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The idea of the confusion of languages is a central issue - because Kircher's whole argument is based on the premise that the languages of Egypt and China were effectively the same thing. This is why he ignores the whole Babel story - it doesn't relate to his theory. For you to bring it up here in this way is to engage in the 'rhetorical hocus-pocus'. The Nephites didn't consider themselves exiles - at least not until after they had to leave their promised land (the land of their first inheritance, which was in the New World, and not the Old World). There certainly isn't a renewal of the Jaredite civilization (at least not in the way that Kircher describes it). What you are providing here is parallelomania. It is not a legitimate comparison. The conclusions you come to are not supported by the evidence - but this isn't really a surprise - because you start with the conclusion and then hunt for the evidence. One of the rules I left out from that list: "Parallel-hunters do not, as a rule, set out to be truthful and impartial. They are hell-bent on proving a point."

Rhetorical hocus-pocus? I was responding to your (inaccurate) comment about Kircher's ideas about the confusion of languages. This one:

"The Jaredites maintain their original language (that original language that Kircher likes) because they escaped the confusion of languages at Babel."

My understanding is that Kircher did believe that some tribes, Heber at least, were exempt from the confounding of tongues and retained the primitive Hebrew that Kircher believed to be the antediluvian lingua humana. As you know, the Jaredites also retained their language after the tower. Kircher also seems to believe that any tribes that might have been exempt at the tower eventually had their primitive Hebrew language confounded during and following the Babylonian captivity. Remember this verse from the Book of Mormon?

"And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record."

Quote

This is why he ignores the whole Babel story - it doesn't relate to his theory.

Do you know Kircher's theory, or his publications? Its hard to believe your statement that Kircher "ignored the whole Babel story" when we know that Kircher wrote a book about it, called Turris Babel.

Before we find ourselves down some trivial rabbit hole again, we should both read Kircher before we pretend to have conclusions about his theories. I think there are some interesting similarities between Kircher's ideas and the Book of Mormon, but I admit I'm totally unfamiliar with this material - as the Kircher/Nephi/Smith theory is not mine. I confess to Googling as I go on the Babel stuff.

But there are two threads from this topic, Kircher's writings on Primitive Hebrew and his sources for Abenephius, that are worth discussing. Will come to that later

On 4/25/2024 at 8:40 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

But you are interested in the historicity question. You can't simply deny that you are interested it in, and then engage the question directly. There are several problems here - 1: in the bible, the phrase "isle of the sea" isn't understood as literally as you understand it.

I've explained this, I am interested in the historicity question, but not as much as I'm interested in establishing a setting for the gold plates. It's kinda difficult to establish whether the account is history or fiction if we don't know where the events take place. I know you acknowledge historicity in 1/2 Nephi, but then imagine them sailing off the edge of the world or into some postmodern netherland. Whatever works for you. But from what I've seen, the majority of readers of the Book of Mormon accept it as an historical record. The historicity of the text extends from Jerusalem, to Yemen/Oman in the early 6th century BC to an unidentified position in the real material world somewhere across the waters until 421 AD. It's awkward IMO to argue for a historical opener in Jerusalem but then shift to a postmodernist reading after the boat trip simply because Nephi doesn't think its important to tell us where they were. Apologies if I've misrepresented your views again.

Quote

One of the most popular interpretations of the phrase "isles of the sea" in use in the early 19th century comes from Isaac Newton:

That works. But Isaac Newton? Since we know the identity of the man among the gentiles described in Nephi's vision, why not use his interpretation of the isles of the sea? After all, he's the one who was led by the Spirit across the waters. More on this below

On 4/25/2024 at 8:40 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that there is a disconnect with this sort of technical definition that you want to use here. It seems quite likely (especially given this sort of 19th century understanding - but it isn't an understanding that is terribly out of place in the original contexts) that the Nephites could understand the Americas as being on the Isles of the Sea, or France, or really any location that wasn't a part of Asia and Africa. You are making assumptions about the text.

Columbus informs us that the Spirit told him where he could find his destination. We know with certainty which biblical geography Columbus identified as the land across the waters. From The Alchemy of Conquest: Science, Religion, and the Secrets of the New World

"Columbus did indeed identify the islands he discovered with the biblical Ophir; and though there can be no doubt about the importance of Old Testament geography in the conception of Columbus’s project"

I position the gold plate narrative in the same geography that the man among the gentiles positioned the biblical Ophir. If we consider only the text, this is the most plausible identification of the land across the many waters described in 1 Nephi 13.

Quote

And this is before we start to have the discussion about "correct translations." If all we have is a translation, then the idea of "correct translation" has to precede all of this - because all of this is dependent on an interpretation of the translation. Your idea isn't really that simple because it seems to entail a whole host of assumptions (many of which, I think, I disagree with).

I don't see a 'correct translation' problem with my interpretation of the the setting of the gold plates narrative as Columbus' Ophir. Either Columbus was the man among the gentiles, or he wasn't. Joseph Smith couldn't mistranslate the identity of the man who crossed the waters. If he did, then the implications are quite problematic. I'll add here that I am well aware of the problems that arise for my interpretation as we consider all of Nephi's vision. Who are the Saints of God fleeing captivity? Nephi sees a book that "proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew". Who is that Jew? But this discussion isn't going to fit here.

On 4/25/2024 at 8:40 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

No. This is an impossibility. Why? Because the idea of an Egyptian Jew named Nephi is present only in unpublished manuscripts by Kircher. In his published material, there is no Egyptian Jew named Nephi. There is only Abenephius the Arab. 

Again, I'm not arguing the gold plates Nephi is Barrachius Nephi. But I can understand the confusion as I didn't word my thoughts very clearly. My meaning was "Mitchill very well could have read the translations of hieroglyphs (unknowingly) attributed to an Egyptian Jew/Arab named Nephi/Abenephius". As in Mitchill could have read or was familiar with the text, but didn't necessarily know the name of the compiler was Abenephius/Nephi. But you raise a valid point, and have answered my other question above, Mitchill could not have known the name Nephi. However, it remains a reasonable possibility, given his interest in hieroglyphs, that Mitchill had read the fragments of Abenephius in Egyptian Oedipus. 

On 4/25/2024 at 8:40 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

have a copy of Stolzenberg.

I have acquired three other books that discuss Kircher (the first two have discussions about the correspondence with Peiresc):

The Stars of Galileo Galilei and the Universal Knowledge of Athanasius Kircher.

This one is interesting because it has the longest discussion of the letters. It includes the letters explaining why Kircher cannot publish his translation of the text.

A Study of the Life and Works of Athanasius Kircher, 'German Incredibilis'

Ideography and Chinese Language Theory: A History

This one only has a single chapter on Kircher, but it is a fascinating chapter.

I'm impressed with your collection of books on topics you deem uninteresting 

On 4/25/2024 at 8:40 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

In the long run, we get back to the problem of historicity which you suggest is not your concern. But when you try to make it seem important that there could have been this Nephi, who really was a compiler of Hebrew, Coptic and Egyptian texts - that is an argument that only matters when we are trying to establish something akin to historicity. Without that impulse, it has no value for this discussion.

Again, historicity is my secondary concern, a question I'm not asking until I am satisfied that there is a setting of the gold plate narrative. Whether or not Barrachius Nephi was a historical person or an invention of Kircher, I'm confident that the setting of the gold plates narrative is identified in texts by various Arabic writers that Kircher associated with Barrachius Nephi. I'll explain in more detail elsewhere, but in short, Kircher's Nephi borrows from Ibn Wahshiyya who had a lot to say about the geography of the islands of the sea. From Stolzenberg:

"In three quotations Abenephius discusses the relationship between ancient Egyptian and Jewish religion. The longest of these connects the ritual laws of Moses to the idolatry of the Egyptians and strongly resembles, as Kircher observed, a famous passage from Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed. Kircher also quotes Abenephius on the Egyptian division of the Zodiac, celestial influences, the twelve planetary angels that rule over different regions and elements of the world, and the manufacture of astral amulets. A few quotations treat Egyptian-Coptic vocabulary and etymologies, which had been Peiresc’s great hope for the manuscript. This material resembles authentic Arabic traditions known from surviving works by other authors, such as Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti and Ibn Wahshiyya, which Kircher encountered later and cited alongside Abenephius in Egyptian Oedipus. Abenephius’s expressions “needles of the pharaoh” to refer to obelisks, and “letters of the birds,” to refer to hieroglyphs, are translations of genuine Arabic terms. The identification of Hermes with Idris and Enoch and his role in the building of Egyptian monuments, as well as the incorporation of other biblical figures into the history of ancient Egypt, are characteristic of medieval Arabic literary traditions, as will be discussed in chapter 5. Abenephius’s discussion of the construction and worship of talismans and other aspects of the Egyptians’ cult calls to mind works like Ibn Wahshiyya’s Nabatean Agriculture and Murtadi’s Wonders of Egypt. The “strange alphabets” that Peiresc described (but which Kircher never published) are suggestive of Arabic works on the decipherment of hieroglyphs and other unusual scripts"

You're going to love to hate this. As you know, my proposed geographical setting for the gold plates is the island/peninsula known to Ptolemy as the Aurea Chersonesus and known to Arab geographers like Ibn Wahshiyya as Komr/Comoro (source). How might an oriental linguist at Dartmouth or Columbia know any of this in the 1800s-1820s? Through Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall's 1806 English translations of Ibn Wahshiyya. This is from Jason Colavito's collation of the von Hammer-Purgstall translation: (source)

"The alchemist and author Ibn Wahshiyya (fl.9th century CE) wrote a number of books on Hermeticism, magic, and the occult, including the justly famous Nabatean Agriculture, which reflected ancient Babylonian material. His Ancient Alphabets is a Hermetic discussion of the occult meaning of various Near Eastern scripts and ciphers, both real and fictitious. While some have argued that the text is a Renaissance forgery based on the work of Athanasius Kircher, most scholars agree that it is a genuine ninth century Hermetic account. (Al-Nadim discusses the book in his Al-Fihirst in 987.) It reflects material drawn from Christian chronolographic traditions as well as Greek literature, and it presages by a century the stories later told about Surid, Philemon, and the Pyramids. In recent years, Okasha El Daly argued that Ibn Wahshiyya accurately deciphered some Egyptian hieroglyphs, but this claim is quite exaggerated. The text is that of the translation made by Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, which I have collated to place the images of the alphabets in their correct positions in the text. I have also amended a few of archaic spellings for clarity and to reflect modern usage."

Edited April 26, 2024 by Zosimus

[Tacenda]

Listened to RFM and Bill Reel's podcast with Lars Nielsen presenting his case and then taking questions from them and a few callers. I wonder if there's anything in this presentation that some on here would be interested in. 

[Zosimus]

On 4/25/2024 at 8:40 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The Nephites didn't consider themselves exiles - at least not until after they had to leave their promised land (the land of their first inheritance, which was in the New World, and not the Old World).

I missed replying to this one. following up here because it is important. From 2 Nephi 10;

"Nevertheless, we have been driven out of the land of our inheritance; but we have been led to a better land, for the Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea."

I read this as Jacob considering himself and the Lehites as exiles from Jerusalem

[Benjamin McGuire]

8 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

ikr, this trivia about Humboldt has become a convenient way for you to avoid the CFR. I ask the question about Landa because he, wasn't available to those discussing American hieroglyphs in the 1810s. Humboldt was accessible. My point is Humboldt reference Kircher because Kircher had written about Mexican hieroglyphs much earlier. From Kircher's Egyptian Oedipus:

No. You seem to be ignoring the fact that you wrote that Humboldt "was one of the first to discuss the 'hieroglyphs' of South America." This really isn't true. If you say that Humboldt uses Kircher, this is a claim that defeats your earlier statement. Why? Kircher died a century before Humboldt was born. When I say this is all a red herring - it is because it is clear that that Humboldt's material isn't an influence on the contents of the Book of Mormon. That figure that you provide from Kircher doesn't actually have anything to do with the Book of Mormon. It doesn't seem that Kircher has any influence on the Book of Mormon. There really isn't anything in the Book of Mormon that points us back to Humboldt or to Kircher. This is the problem. When you break Kircher or Humboldt into broad generalizations, they are no longer unique. We can find those same generalized ideas in lots of places. So why the need to look at Kircher or Humboldt? Because you are trying to fabricate a connection between specific ideas and Joseph Smith.

18 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

You are moving the goalposts again. Your original comment was that it wasn't possible for anyone to mention Kircher in an American publication. Well, Buchanan mentions Kircher in an American publication which was printed and distributed in upstate New York in 1809.  It was in the Dartmouth Library as early as 1825, likely earlier. I think we've exhausted this topic. Moving on.

I agreed with you. I moved the goalpost. It became clear that by reference, you meant the inclusion of the last name Kircher, in a footnote, in an appendix in a published text. I will absolutely agree that it is there. It's inclusion in The Star of the East is useless to anyone who isn't already knowledgeable about Kircher. The text doesn't quote him, doesn't discuss his ideas, it doesn't list any publications by Kircher. But yes, it's mentioned. And if you want to get picky at this level, then by all means, I can argue that Humboldt was nowhere near one of the first to discuss the hieroglyphs of South America. The problem I have is that you aren't really addressing the problem of the mention of Kircher and its lack of context. It doesn't matter how many early Americans would have read The Star of the East, not a single one of them would have any idea about his theories, or the contents of his books. This is you being deceptive. Buchanan mentions Kircher. It is only a mention. There is no discussion of Kircher. There is nothing there. I provided the entire reference.

24 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

My point is Humboldt reference Kircher because Kircher had written about Mexican hieroglyphs much earlier.

See this is the same sort of bait and switch. Earlier in this thread, you made this claim:

On 4/20/2024 at 10:16 AM, Zosimus said:

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.

Your link takes us to the three references to Kircher in that voume. Let's look at them. Here is the first one, from page 242 (I included part of page 241 for context, Emphasis added):

Quote

I imagine it may be agreeable to those scientific persons, who are engaged in the study of ancient astronomy, to find here a reference to all the passages, and which I have carefully verified: Hipparchi Comm. in Arat., lib. 3, c. 2 (Petavii Uranolog., ed. 1703, p. 134); Geminus, Elem. Astron., c. 1 and 16 (Uranol., p. 139); Varro de Lingua Latina, lib. 6, c. 2 (Acutores Lat. Linguae ed. Gothofred., 1585, p. 48); Cicero de Divin., lib. 2, c. 46 (ed. Jos. Oliveti, 1740, tom. 3, p. 81 and 478); German. Caesar in Arati Phoen. v. 89 (Hygin. Opera, Bas., 1535, p. 164 and 187); Vitruv. de Architext., lib. 9, c. 4 (ed. Joannis de Laet, Amst., 1649, p. 190); Manil. Atron., lib. 1, v. 609, and lib. 4, v. 203 (ed. Mich. Fayer, tom. 1, p. 77 and 313); Virgi., lib. 5, p. 208 (ed. Pancrat. Mascivii, tom. 1, p. 131); Plin., Hist. Nat., lib. 18, c. 25, sect. 59 (ed. Harduin., 1723, tom. 2, p. 130); Ptolem., lib. 9, c. 7.; Plut. de Plac. phil., lib. 1, c. 6 (ed. Reiske, vol. 9, p. 486); Manethonis Apotelesm., lib. 2, v. 137 (ed. Gronov. 1698, p. 23); Macrob. Comment. in Somnum Scip., lib. 1, c. 19, et Saturn., lib. 1, c. 12 and 22 (Opera omnia, ed. Gronov., 1670, v. 90, 244 and 306); Achilles Tatius, Isagoge, c. 23 et frag. (Uranol., p. 85 and 96); Theon. Comment. in Ptol. (Ed. Bas., 1538, p. 386); Martianus Capella de Nupt. Philologiae et Mercurii, lib. 8 (ed. princepts, 1498, fol. R. 3); Luc. Amperlius liber mem. cap. 2 (ed. Bipontina ad calcem Flori, p. 158); Kircher, Oedip. Aegypt., 1653, tom. 2. p. 206.

So, here we are - information about ancient astronomy - all the possible sources that Humboldt was aware of. Kircher is the last entry. I suppose we should believe that everyone who went to Dartmouth was aware of all of these authors and their texts based on the inclusion here in Humboldt, right? What exactly did Kircher have to say about ancient astronomy? I am curious to know what Humboldt really has to say about it. But alas, I am forced into disappointment.

Here is the second entry, from page 255, emphasis added, and a clarification put into brackets:

Quote

The same writer [Mr. Gatterer] asserts, that Cecrops and Pythagoras were acquainted with this system of Egyptian numeration; and that it took its origin from the lineary hieroglyphical arithmetic, in which perpendicular strokes have a value of position, while several rows of horizontal bars denote tens, and the multiples of ten (Gatterer, Weltgeschichte bis Cyrus, p. 586). According to this hypothesis, the notation peculiar to the Hundoos would have been introduced for the second time into Europe by the Arabians; but these assertions do not seem to rest on very solid foundations (Kircher, Obel. Panph., p. 461).

This is a discussion about Gatterer's interpretation of counting systems. Humboldt believes Gatterer is wrong, and cites Kircher's explanation as part of his reason for rejecting Gatterer. He doesn't actually quote Gatterer.

The final entry is in the list of authors, on page 264 (emphasis added):

Quote

Kircher. Oedipus, xiii, 183, 359; xiv, 242; Obelise Pamfili, xiv, 255.

So, I am now really, really curious. What does someone learn from all of this about Kircher?

58 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Rhetorical hocus-pocus? I was responding to your (inaccurate) comment about Kircher's ideas about the confusion of languages:

You didn't respond to it. Responding to it means quoting Kircher and showing where he discusses the confusion of languages at Babel.

59 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

My understanding is that Kircher did believe that some tribes, Heber at least, was exempt from the confounding of tongues and retained the primitive Hebrew that Kircher believed to be the antediluvian lingua humana. As you know, the Jaredites also retained their language after the tower. Kircher also seems to believe that any tribes that might have been exempt at the tower eventually had their primitive Hebrew language confounded during the Babylonian captivity. Remember this verse from the Book of Mormon?

And yet the Jaredites don't write or speak in Hebrew (or in Egyptian for that matter). Kircher does eventually deal with the Tower of Babel for the first time in the last book he writes (as you note) - and by then, his views presented in China Illustrata have evolved. But that text has never been translated into English (as far as I know). That text (Turris Babel) is never quoted by Humboldt. It provides for a break in languages by family (there are only four major language groups). And all of this is so different from the Book of Mormon's approach where the Brother of Jared prays so that the families of Jared and his brother will still be able to understand each other.

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

I'm impressed with your collection of books on topics you deem uninteresting

I picked them up for this discussion.

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

Again, historicity is my secondary concern, a question I'm not asking until I am satisfied that there is a setting of the gold plate narrative.

Why do you think that this issues are separated? A setting for a narrative is very much a question of historicity, isn't it?

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

its because Kircher's Nephi borrows from Ibn Wahshiyya

Perhaps - but you are still illustrating the problem. There is no "nephi" in Kircher's published works, there is only Abenephius the Arab. And, as Roberto Buinanno suggests:

Quote

Following Daniel Stolzenberg, however, we may consider that Peiresc, who had seen the essay, believed it possessed a certain value. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that the manuscript, though of an uncertain origin, really existed, even though it was probably a mere Arab translation of works written by several authors.

As with everything else, it really doesn't matter, I suppose, what the truth is, what matters is the perception provided by Kircher for your argument. But in Kircher's published works - those read by Humboldt and others, there is no Israelite Nephi, there is only the Arab Abenephius. And here, the reason why there might be some similarities is quite clear. Of course, Ibn Wahshiyya dies in 930 CE, more than 1500 years after Nephi is supposed to have left Jerusalem (and this, of course, is why reality isn't really a part of this discussion). A narrative of a Nephi based on this figure could only be a fictional account.

2 hours ago, Zosimus said:

You're going to love to hate this. As you know, my proposed geographical setting for the gold plates is the island/peninsula known to Ptolemy as the Aurea Chersonesus and known to Arab geographers like Ibn Wahshiyya (aka Barrachius Nephi) as Komr/Comoro (source). How might an oriental linguist at Dartmouth or Columbia known any of this in the 1810s/1820s? Through Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall's 1806 English translations of Ibn Wahshiyya. From Jason Colavito's collation of the translation: (source)

Actually I don't hate it. I just think it is completely ignorant.

None of this really matters. Let's go back to Daniel Stolzenberg:

Quote

In three quotations Abenephius discusses the relationship between ancient Egyptian and Jewish religion. The longest of these connects the ritual laws of Moses to the idolatry of the Egyptians and strongly resembles, as Kircher observed, a famous passage from Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed.

Do you see why I might look at your statement with more than a little skepticism? Ibn Wahshiyya wasn't equated with Barrachius Nephi by Kircher. And in Kircher's published works, he is identified only as Abenephius the Arab. But Kircher does note the similarities between Kircher's works and Maimonides. And, I assume you read this comment from Stolzenberg:

Quote

This material resembles authentic Arabic traditions known from surviving works by other authors, such as Jalal al- Din al- Suyuti and Ibn Wahshiyya, which Kircher encountered later and cited alongside Abenephius in Egyptian Oedipus.

Kircher knew who Ibn Wahshiyya was. He had a copy of some of his works - again from Stolzenberg:

Quote

It is not certain which of Ibn Wahshiyya’s works Kircher knew, but likely it was some part of the Nabatean Agriculture. Kircher, who reported that he had acquired his manuscript in Malta, appears to have been the fi rst European scholar to encounter Ibn Wahshiyya’s work firsthand.

But again, all of this really doesn't matter - because none of this information that you are trying to put together is really important - what is important is the perception of all this material. And your suggestion that any linguist at Dartmouth would have had access to all of this other stuff is ludicrous on its face. What was actually available at Dartmouth? There is a copy of Kircher there. You have to be able to read it (and I doubt they loaned it out). But all of this other stuff that you discuss here - Nephi the Rabbi, "the 'strange alphabets' that Peiresc described (but which Kircher never published)" mentioned by Stolzenberg - all of this other material isn't there. It isn't a part of Kircher's book. Kircher's book in an of itself doesn't provide a fraction of the support that you think it does for your theory. And if that supposed oriental linguist at Dartmouth is aware of Ibn Wahshiyya or Maimonides, then he knows that these are all relatively late figures, living more than 1,500 years after Nephi allegedly leaves Jerusalem. They certainly aren't going to consider this as a context for the Book of Mormon narrative.

All of this is the sort of thing that shows that there is no real coherent narrative that puts all of this together.

And we are still arguing about details - irrelevancies. And then of course, if Joseph Smith knows all of this, then why is he so accepting of an American context so many years before any of this makes sense? So maybe we should discuss two important issues -

First, based on your assessment of all of this, do you conclude that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction?

Second, how are we to understand the Book of Mormon's philosophical discussions. For example, where does its notion of reading texts by likening them unto the reader come from (it's not just a discussion of how it should be done, the text provides examples of doing this)?

[Nevo]

To interject, I don't think John Smith really qualifies as an "oriental linguist." He published a grammar of Hebrew (with pronunciation that seems highly eccentric), which he mostly taught himself as an undergraduate. His friend John Wheelock said (probably exaggerating): "The Latin, the Greek, and the Hebrew, were almost as familiar to him as his native language. He clearly comprehended the Samaritan and Chaldaic; and far extended his researches in the Arabic." Wheelock himself only knew some Latin and Greek, so wasn't really qualified to assess Smith's competence in the other languages, but he seems to be ranking them in the order of Smith's familiarity with them. I think it's questionable how much Arabic Smith actually knew. Smith's day job was teaching Latin and Greek.

Edited April 26, 2024 by Nevo

[Nofear]

A summary of the Nielson claims and counter claims I think would be very helpful.

[webbles]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Listened to RFM and Bill Reel's podcast with Lars Nielsen presenting his case and then taking questions from them and a few callers. I wonder if there's anything in this presentation that some on here would be interested in. 

I think the big problem with any theory that goes through Spaulding/Rigdon is the problem of how did Joseph receive the book, notes, etc?  Does Lars mention any of that?  Because it doesn't matter how many parallels you find if the text can't get from one to the other.

[Zosimus]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

I think the big problem with any theory that goes through Spaulding/Rigdon is the problem of how did Joseph receive the book, notes, etc?  Does Lars mention any of that?  Because it doesn't matter how many parallels you find if the text can't get from one to the other.

He doesn't offer any new path for a manuscript to get from Spaulding to Smith. He seems to think an 1887 article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer written by Ethan Smith's grandson (Ethan Sanford Smith) speculating about a manuscript that was written by John Smith is a solution. Here's the full article, and here's a relevant paragraph from it:

"It is true that Spalding was deeply impressed with Professor Smith, but by the time that Spalding received a copy of his unpublished manuscript, neither professed to believe in the pet doctrines that Wheelock had advocated concerning the genealogy of the Native Americans. To be sure, Professor Smith treasured Wheelock as a friend, as an employer, and as a de facto family member (he even named his firstborn son John Wheelock Smith)—and he duly stayed in his academic lane like the humble and obedient servant that he said he was in the closing of his letters. But that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t something of an inside joke between the professor and his star graduate student that Wheelock, too, had a bit too much of the same orthodox scholasticism mediated by dogmatic faith that had doomed both Kircher and Mather. Spalding’s story will be told in his own upcoming chapter, but it is enough for now to say that Spalding’s true passion was to be a writer and a storyteller; Professor Smith knew it, and he could not deny it. He believed that Spalding had the laudable and emulous industry that would, with divine grace, qualify him for eminent utility to mankind as both a Dartmouth missionary and as an author, which gave him an inexpressible pleasure."

At first glance, it'd seem convincing. But there are problems, as Uncle Dale points out. It seems Ethan Sanford Smith is telling us that his grandfather Ethan Smith (author of View of the Hebrews) was Spaulding's prof and wrote the manuscript used by Spaulding. But this is impossible, Ethan Smith was a classmate of Spaulding at Dartmouth, not his professor. So to make it work we have to assume Ethan Sanford Smith knows all this as some sort of family tradition passed down by Ethan Smith, or his son Lyndon who was at Dartmouth while Hyrum was at Moors. The biggest problem with the John Smith manuscript theory is that John Smith had written in his lectures that he didn't believe the Americas were peopled by Jews, or as he puts it, people that knew the name of Moses. So its unlikely IMO that John Smith would secret a manuscript describing Jews in America.

Nielson also mentions an obituary of Sidney Rigdon's wife that mentions John Smith as the author of the Book of Mormon, but I think that is nothing more than an error. Seems more likely the person who wrote the obituary confused the name Joseph with the name John rather than some sort of deathbed confession published in an obituary.

Edited April 26, 2024 by Zosimus

[Nevo]

14 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Ethan Smith was a classmate of Spaulding at Dartmouth

Small correction: Although they were only a year apart in age, Ethan Smith and Solomon Spalding were not classmates. Spalding was a student from 1781–1785 and Smith was a student from 1786–1790.  

[Zosimus]

23 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Small correction: Although they were only a year apart in age, Ethan Smith and Solomon Spalding were not classmates. Spalding was a student from 1781–1785 and Smith was a student from 1786–1790.  

Thanks, you have any plans to post your Behrens factcheck anywhere?

[Teancum]

On 4/18/2024 at 7:34 PM, Nofear said:

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.

If you are interested buy his book or listen to an interview buy him.  Can't you do your own leg work?  And really its not up to anyone to explain away the Book of Mormon.  It ups to those who make supernatural claims about how it came to be to prove those claims.  IMO that is where the real failure is.

[Nofear]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

If you are interested buy his book or listen to an interview buy him.  Can't you do your own leg work?  And really its not up to anyone to explain away the Book of Mormon.  It ups to those who make supernatural claims about how it came to be to prove those claims.  IMO that is where the real failure is.

I was talking about this thread. Lots of discussion between Zosimus and Benjamin MacGuire and it also seems that there was a lot of repetition. But your chastisement duly noted.

[Nevo]

On 4/27/2024 at 8:12 AM, Zosimus said:

Thanks, you have any plans to post your Behrens factcheck anywhere?

You can find some of it in the entry for John Smith on Wikipedia. I haven't organized everything yet, but here is something to give you a taste.

Richard Behrens claimed that "John Smith was born December 21, 1752 in Rowley, Massachusetts, to Joseph Smith and Elizabeth Palmer, both cousins of Asael Smith and Mary Duty, the paternal grandparents of the prophet Joseph Smith." The date is wrong and the parents are wrong. I discuss some of the evidence here.

Behrens says that John "was sent off to Dummer Academy in Byefield (sic) near Topsfield and Rowley, Massachusetts, soon after his parents died when he was a young boy." (Lars Nielsen, characteristically, goes even further: "a caring community took pity on the orphan and, in memory of his goodly parents, paid for him to attend Dummer Academy"). Smith's parents didn't die when he was a young boy. His father and mother lived until 1779 and 1777, respectively. According to multiple sources, his father enrolled him in Dummer school (source, source, and Smith's widow's memoir, below).

Behrens writes: "Soon after [his appointment as Dartmouth's first professor], John developed the ancient language course, which at first included Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldaic, Syriac, Assyric, and later added Arabic and Coptic Egyptian." Behrens provides no source for this claim. Smith was contracted to teach "English, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldaic [Biblical Aramaic] "and as many other such languages as he shall understand." There's no evidence that Smith ever taught (or understood) any languages other than Latin, Greek, Biblical Hebrew, and Biblical Aramaic. In his eulogy for Smith, John Wheelock claimed that Smith had also made "researches" into Arabic, but there's no indication that he mastered it or ever tried to teach it. Smith's alleged proficiency in Syriac, "Assyric," Arabic, and Coptic Egyptian appears to be Behrens's own invention. 

Behrens states that Smith "also wrote the Dartmouth Plays, which were designed to break the monotony of the recitation method of learning. His Hebrew grammar, which in 1773 [sic] but was rejected for publication because of his young age, was finally published in Boston in 1804 and his Latin grammar soon afterwards." The "Dartmouth Plays" apparently refer to two short dialogues that Smith wrote, "A Dialogue between an Englishman and an Indian" (1779) and "A Little Tea Table Chitchat" (1801)—the latter, Smith wrote to John Phillips, "incurred no censure; and passed for a humor." Smith completed the first draft of his Hebrew grammar in 1772 and a revision in 1774. It was published in 1803. The Latin grammar was published in 1802. Again, you can see how sloppy Behrens is. He gets every one of these dates wrong.

Behrens writes: "In 1803 John Smith was recognized by Brown College with a Doctor of Sacred Theology degree for his many contributions." The degree was actually an honorary Doctor of Divinity (DD) degree, which was conferred upon "individuals of distinction and accomplishment" (source).

Behrens writes: "As revealed in Wheelock's 1809 eulogy of Smith, they spent long hours coordinating the intricately correlated Dartmouth curriculum. Ancient language, ancient literature, ancient scriptural texts, and theology, were tightly integrated with Newtonian astronomy and earth science." You can read Wheelock's eulogy here. There isn't a word about them spending "long hours coordinating the intricately correlated Dartmouth curriculum."

Behrens writes of his lectures: "His favorite scripture with which he punctuates controversial material was, 'For now we see through a glass darkly but in the end we shall all see eye to eye.'" Again, Behrens appears to be just making things up. Smith's lectures and sermons were not remotely controversial.

The controversies that Smith was caught up in in the last decade of his life concerned a power struggle between the college president, John Wheelock, and the Dartmouth trustees. Smith took Wheelock's side and was denigrated publicly as his lackey. Smith's widow wrote that she asked him just before his death "if he had any unpleasant feelings towards those clergymen in the neighborhood who had taken sides against him," and Smith replied, "Oh no, 'we all now see through a glass darkly, but soon we shall see eye to eye.'" This wasn't a refrain that Smith used in his lectures to "punctuate controversial material."

Smith was, by all accounts, mild-mannered. His wife of 24 years wrote that "in his natural disposition he possessed the most mild and equal temperament of any person I was ever acquainted with." His friend John Wheelock described him as "possessed of great modesty and a degree of reserve." Roswell Shurtleff, the divinity professor at the college and Smith's successor in the pulpit at the college church, said he was "universally acknowledged to possess one of the kindest of hearts."

Shurtleff's description is, I think, worth quoting at length:

Quote

As a linguist, he was minutely accurate, and faithful to his pupils, although I used to doubt whether he was familiar with the classic writers much beyond the field of his daily instructions. But you know that in his day, Philology, like many other sciences, was comparatively in its cradle, especially in this country. His reputation in his profession depended chiefly on the recitations; and there he was perfect to a proverb. The student never thought of appealing from his decision.

In his disposition he was very kind and obliging, and remarkably tender of the feelings of his pupils—a civility which was always duly returned.

In religious sentiment, he was unexceptionably orthodox,—though fearful of Hopkinsianism, which made some noise in the country at that period. His voice was full and clear and his articulation very distinct. His sermons were written out with great accuracy, but were perhaps deficient in pungency of application. On the whole, he could hardly be considered a popular preacher.

Professor Smith was a man of uncommon industry. This must be apparent from what he accomplished. Besides his two recitations daily, he supplied the College and village with preaching for about twenty years, and exchanged pulpits but very seldom; and, in the mean time, was almost constantly engaged in some literary enterprise. I well remember a conversation with the late President Brown, then a Tutor in College, soon after the Professor died,—in which we agreed in the opinion, that we had known no man of the same natural endowments, who had been more useful, or who had occupied his talent to better advantage.

You ask for illustrative anecdotes. Such you know, are apt to follow teachers in College. Students often seek amusement at the expense of instructors, whom they truly respect. Professor Smith was perhaps rather a prominent mark; for, though universally acknowledged to possess one of the kindest of hearts, he was constitutionally both nervous and timid. He could not well give a joke, and still less could he retort one. When a little disconcerted, he at once lost his balance, and could only receive with meekness whatever should come next. This gave occasion to some anecdotes, which may have gone abroad with more or less correctness.

In illustration of this, I will venture to relate a case which occurred while I was a Tutor. Professor Smith was hearing a recitation in Watts' Logic, I think, where, on the doctrine of identity, it was held that a piece of mechanism remained the same, though the several parts were supplied anew, until not a particle of the original was left. A member of the class held up a penknife, and said, "Suppose I lose half this handle, and get it supplied, is it the same knife?" "Yes." "After a while, I lose the other half of the handle, and get that supplied?" "The same still," said the teacher. "Then," said Fiske, (for that was the student's name,) at length I lose the blade, and get a new one inserted."

"As a knife it is still the same," said the Professor. "Well," said Fiske again, "this man at my elbow found the several parts, and having put them together, he has a knife, and what knife is that?" Thus the dialogue closed—in a manner equally embarrassing to the Professor and amusing to the class.

Samuel Swift (Class of 1800) recalled: "Professor Smith was an amiable man, but of formal manners, a critical book scholar, but an artificial teacher. He preached with little animation or force in his composition or delivery."

One of Smith's brattier students, Judah Dana (Class of 1795), left this reminiscence:

Quote

Soon after our Class had commenced the study of Homer (for the sake of being fashionable or some other cause) a Conspiracy was raised against this ill-fated book, and upon a certain afternoon and evening the copies all disappeared, and when the Class went to get their lesson, not a Homer could be found, and the next Morning the Class appeared at recitation without Book or Lessons. Professor "Johnny" as we called Professor Smith who was the best Linguist in New England, but did not "Know Beans" about anything else, stared at us with amazement, was grieved and almost wept at the depravity of the times, in which that excellent book could not be understood and duly appreciated. He then gave us many Beauties of Homer, reciting whole passages from Memory, and smacking his lips as if he were tasting something delightful. At length he requested us to recite, but there was not a book there, except his own, and a few lines, only, were recited, and the Class dismissed.

Later historians haven't been kind to Smith either:

Quote

Professor Smith's preaching was regarded as dull, as was also his teaching. His life of Cicero and his theological lectures harmonise well with his reputation. His style was ponderous and periodic. I have a letter written by him in 1781 to Rev. Mr. Willard of Stafford, Conn., from which one or two sentences may be given: "The friendly attention you was pleased to show me, when I had the honor of waiting on you, last spring, demands my grateful acknowledgment. I shall always be happy, whenever an opportunity presents, to prove the reality of the esteem and respect I bear you, as a gentleman of great merit and learning, and possessed of that great Catholicism, which results from a mind enlightened by the beams of genuine science, and well informed of the various and complicated eccentricities, with which human nature is connected. . . . Could not Phormio harangue Annibal upon the art military, and the duties of a general, with as much propriety, and to as good a purpose, as many modern divines discourse on metaphysical, abstract speculations, elaborate distinctions, and syllogistic, concatenated subjects, to their people astonished and bewildered? Will these warm the heart with a love of virtue? or with a detestation of vice?" At the time of writing this letter he was twenty-nine years old, but it is proper to add that later in life his style was simpler, although still dull (source).

Quote

In his youth Smith was pale and slender, but in his later years he became the stoutest man in the village, weighing over two hundred pounds, though this did not prevent his dying of consumption in 1809. He was nearsighted, nervous, and timid: crossing the Green on a foggy morning, he mistook the blackened stumps for a she-bear and her cubs and rushed to the chapel, his gown streaming behind him, shouting, "A bear and three cubs! A bear and three cubs!" — a cry which was for many years a by-word among the students, whose attitude toward him was summed up by Judah Dana, 1795: "the best linguist in New England but did not know beans about anything else." No wonder that Richardson in his history in a moment of near-exasperation concludes that "both in the pulpit and in the classroom this singularly busy and conscientious pedagogue was a man of monumental dullness" (source).

Here is the full context of the quote from Leon Burr Richardson:

Quote

After the death of [Sylvanus] Ripley no professor of theology was appointed, and the students were thus no longer "receiving the benefit" of lectures in that subject. This deficiency was considered to be highly lamentable and Smith was asked to fill the gap. At this time he was hearing the recitations of two classes, he was pastor of the churches on both sides of the river, a duty requiring two sermons each Sunday, he was librarian, he was carrying an extra class in Hebrew, and he had the duty of correcting all the exercises that were spoken on the stage. Despite these demands, he acceded to the request, prepared laboriously a set of lectures (the manuscript of them still survives) and for two years delivered one each Saturday evening at college prayers. His wife said of him:

But it is almost impossible to have a correct view of the disadvantages under which these labors were performed without having witnessed them, his only study for many years was a small room which was constantly occupied by his family and all the company he had to entertain, which was by no means few in number, but amidst all these hindrances he sat at his desk with his attention immovably fixed upon the studies which he happened to be employed in, as if alone in the world, and here he wrote and rewrote everything he published.

Candor, however, must compel the admission that both in the pulpit and in the classroom this singularly busy and conscientious pedagogue was a man of monumental dullness. His manners were exceedingly formal and his physical appearance undistinguished. He was slow of wit, easily flustered and a shining mark for the ridicule of undergraduates. Moreover, his personal timidity had been made a matter of common repute on account of a headlong entrance into the old College in the early days with the terrified announcement that he had been chased by a bear and two cubs, animals which, upon investigation, turned out to be three tree stumps on the green. This story he was never able to live down. He was utterly servile in his devotion to the president, and unquestioning in the following of executive authority. He presents a pathetic figure of a man of high purpose, conscientious devotion, and untiring industry.

— Leon Burr Richardson, History of Dartmouth College (Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Publications, 1932), 255–56.

In their history of the teaching of "natural philosophy" at Dartmouth, Sanborn Brown and Leonard Reiser called John Smith "a failure as an 18th-century college professor. He was shy, absentminded, and bookish, and he was taken advantage of by students and faculty alike." That sounds like a burn, but they actually meant it as a compliment. They go on to say: "His scholarship would have assured him an honored place in a modern university, but not at Dartmouth in the late 1700s . . . [when] it was more important for the students to learn by rote than to be encouraged to think independently." Smith, they said, presented a variety of viewpoints in his lectures and provided students with "enough reference material in books on natural philosophy to provide a complete course in this subject." In contrast to the customary approach which was to present the students "with the proper answer to be learned and not to allow discussion as an integral part of the educational process." So, in his natural philosophy lectures at least, Smith was ahead of his time.

Anyway, back to Behrens.

Behrens writes: "Solomon Spaulding, class of 1785, followed [Smith's natural philosophy] lecture material closely when he wrote Manuscript Found in 1812 in eastern Ohio." Smith's lectures were delivered to the junior class in 1778. Spalding didn't enter Dartmouth until 1781 and Smith was no longer teaching natural philosophy by then. Spalding's teacher would have been Bezaleel Woodward, who Brown and Reiser note "was no scholar." There's no indication that Woodward, the appointed natural philosophy professor, used the professor of languages' lectures in his teaching.

Behrens claims that Ethan Smith, who came to Dartmouth even later, "also followed [Smith's] lecture material" when he wrote View of the Hebrews in 1823. Again, there is no evidence for this claim.  

Behrens writes: "According to John Smith's widow, Susan Mason, John Smith's Theology lectures represent his opus magna [sic], which he was preparing for publication at the time of his death. She states in a short biography of her husband attached to the almost complete manuscript of his theology lectures that he felt it was the most challenging of his various undertakings and required 17 years to prepare the original 34 lectures and another five years to reduce them to an edited manuscript." Again, this is not accurate.

His widow never described the lectures as his "opus magna" (a mangling of Latin that would have mortified Professor Smith) and she certainly never says it took him 17 (or 22) years to prepare them.

She introduced them as "an unfinished manuscript work which my departed husband was engaged in at the time of his decease, it being the substance of a part of a course of theological lectures delivered before the students of Dartmouth College at the close of the last, and beginning of the present, century."

Later, in the memoir accompanying the lectures, she wrote:

"About the close of the last century or beginning of this there appeared a great demand in public opinion that a professor of Divinity should be established in this institution, that the students should receive the benefit of his lectures. . . . [Mr. Smith] was then sole pastor of the church [on] both sides of the river. . . . [He] felt it his duty to attempt a course of lectures in that important branch of education, which he delivered Saturday evening at College prayers for two years. He used often to say the study it cost him to prepare these lectures in this untried branch of teaching was equal to all his other duties, and he always wrote out all his sermons."

So, Smith started preparing the lectures around the turn of the century and delivered them at Saturday evening prayers "for two years." 

Behrens goes on to say: "These lectures trace his evolution from Greek classicist to ancient text specialist to Arminian theologian." Which is complete hogwash. Smith's lectures show no such thing. He wasn't even a theologian, let alone an "Arminian theologian." It was an "untried branch of teaching" for him. And you'll recall that Smith's fellow pastor and colleague, Roswell Shurtleff, called him "unexceptionably orthodox." Smith was categorized in Sprague's Annals as "a Trinitarian Congregationalist." He preached to a conservative Calvinist congregation for 20+ years and there's no indication that his orthodoxy was ever questioned. In a 1783 letter, Smith specifically said he thought Arminians took things too far. So, no, he wasn't an Arminian theologian and there was no "clash between Arminianism and Calvinism" at Dartmouth in the early 1800s. That's entirely Behrens's own invention. Also, Smith and his daughter were both profiled in Jedidiah Morse's The Panoplist and Missionary Magazine, which is a pretty good indication that their Calvinism wasn't seen as unorthodox.

Anyway, I'll stop there for now. I'll have to get to Hyrum in another post

Edited May 1, 2024 by Nevo

[Zosimus]

5 hours ago, Nevo said:

Anyway, I'll stop there for now. I'll have to get to Hyrum in another post

Sheesh, if that's just a taste, I can't wait to see the rest. Especially the Hyrum parts

[Zosimus]

On 4/26/2024 at 10:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

it is because it is clear that that Humboldt's material isn't an influence on the contents of the Book of Mormon. That figure that you provide from Kircher doesn't actually have anything to do with the Book of Mormon. It doesn't seem that Kircher has any influence on the Book of Mormon. There really isn't anything in the Book of Mormon that points us back to Humboldt or to Kircher. This is the problem. When you break Kircher or Humboldt into broad generalizations, they are no longer unique. We can find those same generalized ideas in lots of places. So why the need to look at Kircher or Humboldt? Because you are trying to fabricate a connection between specific ideas and Joseph Smith.

it was Charles Anthon that first made the connection between Humbodlt and the gold plates. He described an element on the transcript taken from the plates as a "rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Aztec calendar given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to reveal the source.” (1834) or "a rude representation of the Mexican zodiac" (1841).

Since Anthon is the only eyewitness to leave us a description of the transcript, we are forced to conclude that what was on the Book of Mormon plates looked a good deal like an illustration from Humboldt's book.

On 4/26/2024 at 10:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The Star of the East is useless to anyone who isn't already knowledgeable about Kircher. The text doesn't quote him, doesn't discuss his ideas, it doesn't list any publications by Kircher. But yes, it's mentioned. And if you want to get picky at this level, then by all means, I can argue that Humboldt was nowhere near one of the first to discuss the hieroglyphs of South America. The problem I have is that you aren't really addressing the problem of the mention of Kircher and its lack of context. It doesn't matter how many early Americans would have read The Star of the East, not a single one of them would have any idea about his theories, or the contents of his books. This is you being deceptive. Buchanan mentions Kircher. It is only a mention. There is no discussion of Kircher. There is nothing there. I provided the entire reference.

"Not a single American" reading The Star in the East would have any idea about Kircher's theories or the contents of his books? Are you sure? Setting that question aside, my point is that Buchanan himself knew China Illustrata. Kircher's ideas about the origins of Egyptian, Indian and Chinese scripts likely influenced Buchanan's understanding of ancient Indian texts that contain references to a figure that Buchanan, following Wilford, seems to identify as Jesus Christ, mentioned in Indian texts. This fanciful idea was the foundation for the translation of at least one gold book containing biblical themes. I believe it was also the foundation for the translation of the gold plates.

Kircher's theory in China Illustrata about Egyptian migrations across India and China was the foundation for the popular idea in the 18th century that Indian texts contained wisdom from the Egyptians and Hebrews. This is mentioned specifically in The Star in the East. Buchanan spoke of 1st temple Israelites migrating to India, where Indian texts (many written on brass plates) containing references to Jesus Christ were being discovered. Buchanan also described an effort by "western Jews" to remove these Christian references in the Old Testament, implying that Indian scriptures being recovered in the 19th century would retain those Christian references. The Hebrew characters in the quote below didn't carry over properly so you'll have to go to the source to see it:

"Dr. Kennicott complains of a practice among the Western Jews of altering many copies to a conformity with some particular manuscript. He also accuses them of wilful corruption; as in expunging the word "כָּרַת" in Deut. xxvii. 26. Bishop Lowth suspects them of leaving out words in certain places, to invalidate the argument of the Christians; as for example, "לָמוֹ" Isaiah liii. 8.; where the Septuagint read "ἡμῖν." But Jews in the East, remote from the learned controversy of Christians, would have no motive for such corruptions. It is in contemplation of the Author of this Memoir to visit Cochin, previously to his return from India, for the express purpose of investigating these ancient Jewish records..."

This is the history of the Israelites of Malayala and Cochin as it would have been known to those that might have found the works of Claudius Buchanan on shelf 83 of the Dartmouth Library. 

On 4/26/2024 at 10:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

So, I am now really, really curious. What does someone learn from all of this about Kircher?

I don't think the Book of Mormon narrative comes through Kircher. I propose it is interpreted following The Star in the East, which expands on the ideas found in Kircher's China Illustrata. This was common in the 1810s/1820s as Kircher's ideas were still circulating. Here's one example from Raffles History of Java that I referenced earlier:

'The History of Java from the earliest Traditions till the Establishment of Mahomedanism. Amongst the various traditions regarding the manner in which Java and the Eastern Islands were originally peopled, and the source whence its population proceeded, it has been related, that the first inhabitants came in vessels from the Red Sea (Laut Mirah), and that, in their passage, they coasted along the shores of Hindustan; that peninsula then forming an unbroken continent with the land in the Indian Archipelago, from which it is now so widely separated, and which, according to the tradition, has since been divided into so many distinct islands, by some convulsions of nature or revolution of the elements. These people are supposed to have been banished from Egypt, and to have consisted of individuals professing different religious persuasions, who carried along with them to the land of their exile, their different modes of worship and articles of belief." (source)

Raffles published that in 1817. Its certainly pulled, whether directly or indirectly, from the section of China Illustrata I quoted earlier. This demonstrates that as late as 1817, the leading orientalists (if you've been to Singapore, you'll know the name Raffles) still followed Kircher's theory that Asia - China specifically - was colonized by Egyptian exiles. Kircher's theory was still circulating in the 1810s/1820s.

On 4/26/2024 at 10:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

You didn't respond to it. Responding to it means quoting Kircher and showing where he discusses the confusion of languages at Babel.

Kircher didn't believe that the lingua humana was Egyptian or Chinese. He believed it was a primitive form of Hebrew. Kircher believed Heber also retained the lingua humana, but it was later corrupted, primarily during the Babylonian captivity. One interpretation is that the Nephites wrote in reformed Egyptian, but they also understood a Hebrew that had "no imperfection" (Mormon 9:33), which had been altered by them, possibly through their interactions with the followers of Muloch (original spelling of Mulek was Muloch). Kircher informs us that the exiles from Ethiopia/Egypt had idols, including Moloch. Like Kircher's Moloch worshippers, the Mulochites of the gold plates encountered the ruins of a previous civilization, the Jaredites, that also spoke the lingua humana. 

BTW this is speculation in the spirit of discussing the OP, its not anything I've thought through enough to make it "my theory"

On 4/26/2024 at 10:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

And yet the Jaredites don't write or speak in Hebrew (or in Egyptian for that matter). 

The Jareidtes speak Adamic as far as I can tell from commentary. That would be the antediluvian lingua humana from the Garden.

On 4/26/2024 at 10:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

As with everything else, it really doesn't matter, I suppose, what the truth is, what matters is the perception provided by Kircher for your argument. But in Kircher's published works - those read by Humboldt and others, there is no Israelite Nephi, there is only the Arab Abenephius. And here, the reason why there might be some similarities is quite clear. Of course, Ibn Wahshiyya dies in 930 CE, more than 1500 years after Nephi is supposed to have left Jerusalem (and this, of course, is why reality isn't really a part of this discussion). A narrative of a Nephi based on this figure could only be a fictional account.

Again, I'm not saying that gold plates Nephi is related to Kircher's Nephi. But there are three other characters in the Book of Mormon named Nephi. It becomes more like a hereditary name right? Like I said a few times, I think the Kircher Nephi is more a coincidence.

On 4/26/2024 at 10:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Do you see why I might look at your statement with more than a little skepticism? Ibn Wahshiyya wasn't equated with Barrachius Nephi by Kircher. And in Kircher's published works, he is identified only as Abenephius the Arab. But Kircher does note the similarities between Kircher's works and Maimonides. And, I assume you read this comment from Stolzenberg:

I'd quoted that passage from Stolzenberg above. Jason Colavito has an interesting theory, that the Barrachius Nephi manuscript was authentic, but it contained Egyptian magic and other material that was not fit for a Jew and would have embarrassed Kircher. Not to mention if the translation ended up being nothing but "idolatrous superstitions' Peiresc would have been enraged. So Kircher changed the name of the Hebrew Barrachius Nephi to the Egyptian Arabic Abenephius and put off publishing the manuscript. He then plagiarizes material from other Arabic sources like Wahshiyya and attributes it to Abenephius. 

On 4/26/2024 at 10:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

What was actually available at Dartmouth? There is a copy of Kircher there. You have to be able to read it (and I doubt they loaned it out). But all of this other stuff that you discuss here - Nephi the Rabbi, "the 'strange alphabets' that Peiresc described (but which Kircher never published)" mentioned by Stolzenberg - all of this other material isn't there. It isn't a part of Kircher's book. Kircher's book in an of itself doesn't provide a fraction of the support that you think it does for your theory. And if that supposed oriental linguist at Dartmouth is aware of Ibn Wahshiyya or Maimonides, then he knows that these are all relatively late figures, living more than 1,500 years after Nephi allegedly leaves Jerusalem. They certainly aren't going to consider this as a context for the Book of Mormon narrative.

I keep having to repeat this. I don't believe Kircher was a source for the gold plates narrative. I don't believe Kircher's Nephi and the gold plates Nephi are related. None of this is my theory, as you keep saying. Its the theory of the author of the book in the OP. I am not Lars Nielson. 

I am discussing it because I have done some research on it before Lars published his book. But I don't believe John Smith wrote a manuscript full of Kircherisms that was passed to Spaulding and expanded and then published by Joseph Smith as the Book of Mormon. There's no evidence for any of that. My hypothesis is different. Even though I shared a quick summary of it above, I don't believe it comes through Kircher. I'll try and respond in the other thread so this one can stay on topic

Edited April 28, 2024 by Zosimus

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 4/26/2024 at 7:02 PM, Zosimus said:

He doesn't offer any new path for a manuscript to get from Spaulding to Smith. He seems to think an 1887 article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer written by Ethan Smith's grandson (Ethan Sanford Smith) speculating about a manuscript that was written by John Smith is a solution.

Let's be clear that this is an argument for plausibility (possibility) not an argument that can claim anything resembling likelihood. These are not likely chains of events - and there is no evidence to suggest that any of these connections have relevance to the things being discussed. This is a core problem - it means that all of these arguments are based purely on speculation. The conclusions drive the speculations, and not the other way around. Because we are looking only for plausibility (instead of fact or truth), the arguments aim to become unfalsifiable.