What books did Joseph Smith have access to?

[t2t2]

I DO know that. But I am not the one saying "here is evidence" and resusing to offer it up once it is challenged.

As a matter of fact....I'm pretty easy going. If you can even tell me what exactly the original words/name on the artifact is and where this can be referenced I'll gladly look itupfor myself. I assume you know this because you have done the work yourself (not the field work - but the individual study of the printed source) - not because someone told you this and you are here throwing into the fray at random.

[Dill Pickles]

I DO know that. But I am not the one saying "here is evidence" and resusing to offer it up once it is challenged.

As a matter of fact....I'm pretty easy going. If you can even tell me what exactly the original words/name on the artifact is and where this can be referenced I'll gladly look itupfor myself. I assume you know this because you have done the work yourself (not the field work - but the individual study of the printed source) - not because someone told you this and you are here throwing into the fray at random.

Unsolicited advice from the pickle jar: never assume.

[juliann]

Richard Ask and you shall receive.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Bennett scandal for JS was that it kept him from preaching plural marriage publicly.

[t2t2]

Unsolicited advice from the pickle jar: never assume.

Let's then say "will give you benefit of the doubt".

[t2t2]

me: does the artifact say "sam" or "shem"?

you: You are going on and on without even bothering to find out. Why would it be in my best interest to educate you as you dig that hole ever deeper. BTW..."Samuel" is Sam plus the suffix "el". You do know about that, right?

---

Along with the rest - let me ask that simple question again and we'll see who is digging themselves a pit. Is it Sam or Shem on the artifact?

[RichardMdBorn]

Juliann wrote

Nice doctored quote. I actually thought you had a little more integrity than this, Ricard.  Here is what Richard omitted, apparently not wanting those without the book to realize there was an known author to this piece. (portions he removed restored in red):

QUOTE 

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Bennett scandal for JS was that it kept him from preaching plural marriage publicly.  Exactly four weeks after his 1 October 1842 denunciation of polygamy in Times and Seasons, another publication from the church press was released.  The Peace Maker, a thirty-seven-page booklet, skillfully articulated scriptural and theological justifications for polygamy

[RichardMdBorn]

Continuing in the quote where I left off in my last post.

It is possible that John D. Lee later suggested, that Smith commissioned Jacob to put forth his work as a

[RichardMdBorn]

Since Juliann smeared my reputation, I'll post the other quote I referenced.

Nevertheless, as early as the Kirland period, rumors had begun to spread that polygamy was practiced among the Mormons.

In answer, William Phelps read an

[juliann]

Juliann, did I distort this quote???? I realize that the evidence for polygamy in Kirkland is less than it is in Nauvoo, but Donna Hill is hardly an anti-Mormon.

Oh, come on Richard. What does the Donna Hill quote have to do with you chopping up the Wagoner quote? Shame on you for using ellipses to hide inconvenient information.

[lwyatt]

Is there really any doubt that polygamy was practiced in Kirtland? I thought that it was well known that it went on there, and that this was one of the reasons the Saints were driven out of Kirtland - not for any proof of the matter, but because rumors were starting even then to crop up in regards to this practice.

[RichardMdBorn]

Juliann,

From the context, it's clear that I didn't distort anything. Shame on you for smearing me when my point was correct and consistent with Van Wagoner. As I wrote before, you owe me an apology.

Richard

[1973betRP&Glendale]

RichardMdBorn,

Speaking for myself, I appreciate your input on this thread. I hate the fact that phrases like "shame on you," have appeared on this thread, so I'd like to apoligize. I think you can disagree with someone without resorting to that kind of rhetoric.

[SD Denizen]

There is an excellent book, "By the Hand of Mormon", written by Terrell Givens, a Professor at the University of Richmond, that addresses the issue of why the critics of the Church don't address the issue of whether the BoM is what it says it is. This is NOT a "church" publication as it was published by the Oxford University Press. While Givens is LDS, the work is very scholarly and well worth reading! I've read it twice.

[charity]

Pardon me. I thought this was a thread about the source material it is claimed Joseph Smith had access to in order to write the Book of Mormon. Aren't we a little of course with all the polygamy discussion?

[Bertram]

t2t2,

I am afraid, and it is all I have, my testimony is much much stronger than anything you have presented on this thread!

"O vain man"( plural-not you personally) , how can you intellectually prove ANYTHING about GOD or HIS GOSPEL?

I have read so many posters who strive so vainly to prove that their "intellectual" testimony, or even their "intellectual" betrayal of their religious "faith" is so much superior to, say, my simple, and possibly somewhat uneducated background.

If you were less prone to offence, or, less determined on attack being your better means of defence, you might have just noticed, that my first response to you was liberally peppered with Smilies!

The point I was making, obviously failing to achieve, was actually in relation to translation or interpretation of writings. Your emphasis was misleading in relation to your post and I tried to add a little piece of humour into a somewhat concentric post(s) on this thread, which, after all, was actually about "which books did Joseph Smith have access to".

With regard to "my popping in and go" accusation maybe if you were to draw your attention to "User's Local Time" you might possibly deduce that I was tucked up in bed at the time of your response.

I hope this defect does not epitomise your attitude to your intended purpose in hand?

I have briefly scanned your "life" posts and personally I feel that you have something in your sojourn in the search for Gospel assurance which is causing a huge obstacle in your search!

I sincerely hope you find that ASSURANCE OF GOD'S LOVE FOR US ALL!

GOD'S LOVE

[t2t2]

If you were less prone to offence, or, less determined on attack being your better means of defence, you might have just noticed, that my first response to you was liberally peppered with Smilies!

My wife is the first to tell you there's some truth behind every joke. You can put 100 smilies into a post and it still be completely negative and/or irrelevent.

You "popped" in, posted a quick "your post had no substance" line and left. You DID post and run. If you had time to post what you did you had time to post something that actually responded to the points I made. You did not. And now as you come back to defend yourself you STILL do not. We can all say "I don't agree" all we want. That's easy. The tough thing is to try and explain WHY we disagree. I do my best at that. Sometimes I fail. But it's better than a snide comment (even with smileys) that says nothing more than "I think your post is dumb". If you want to tell me why you disagree AND throw some slam and a few smileys - great!

how can you intellectually prove ANYTHING about GOD or HIS GOSPEL?

It's not about proof. It's about evidence. And yes indeed one can search for such. We all do. You do. Critics do and believers do. What more could God ask for than his people using both their hearts AND their minds to find him?

I have briefly scanned your "life" posts and personally I feel that you have something in your sojourn in the search for Gospel assurance which is causing a huge obstacle in your search!

*raises hand*. I know! I know! It's sin...right?

Honestly...the obstacle seems to be that the Gospel as taught by the LDS church is wrong. HUGE stumbling block, yes.

[juliann]

From the context, it's clear that I didn't distort anything. Shame on you for smearing me when my point was correct and consistent with Van Wagoner. As I wrote before, you owe me an apology.

Your off-topic point was that JS was denying polygamy while practicing it...something that is a little odd to be preaching because no one questions it. So I don't know who you are preaching to.

I checked on that quote because by removing all mention of an admitted author of the pamphlet, you left me wondering if JS had written it. That each and every reference to a known author was removed while you are proving something that is not questioned was extremely misleading. And speaking of poor form...it is improper to use ellipses to skip paragraphs, you are telling the reader that you only omitted an irrelevant sentence or two, not a good portion of the page. Get out your Turabian. That alone was misleading. There is a standard form for indicating the omission of a paragraph and as a student there is no way you could not know that. It is not your call to decide whether your misuse of ellipses matters or not. It always matters when you do nothing but criticize Mormons on multiple boards because it brings up questions of integrity. So spare us the drama.

I do apologize to Charity for helping to derail the thread.

[Magyar]

t2t2 wants proof. He COULD go back and read Nibley's work, but he wants us to lay it all out for him. Don't have time, sorry.

But layman as I am, I have read for myself, in non-Mormon histories, about the Egyptian king Aha, as well as Horihor (not that big a stretch from Korihor).

Two bulls eyes that I have validated for myself.

[Dill Pickles]

t2t2 wants proof. He COULD go back and read Nibley's work, but he wants us to lay it all out for him. Don't have time, sorry.

But layman as I am, I have read for myself, in non-Mormon histories, about the Egyptian king Aha, as well as Horihor (not that big a stretch from Korihor).

Two bulls eyes that I have validated for myself.

Question from the pickle jar: does the same paradigm apply to deceased apologists as applies to deceased prophets?

Another question from the pickle jar: Can we allow our apologists, dead and living, any leeway? What an apologist labels a "hit" may be a critic's "close but no cigar". The distance from Nahom to NHM is either incredibly close or miles apart, depending on the paradigm of the person making the determination, incredibly close to an apologist is miles apart to a critic. The same with all the other examples. Anything less than a direct hit is subject to weight via paradigm, and thus far, there have been no direct hits.

[juliann]

What an apologist labels a "hit" may be a critic's "close but no cigar". The distance from Nahom to NHM is either incredibly close or miles apart, depending on the paradigm of the person making the determination, incredibly close to an apologist is miles apart to a critic. The same with all the other examples. Anything less than a direct hit is subject to weight via paradigm, and thus far, there have been no direct hits.

That only works because you are using "apologist" instead of "scholar" when scholar is more appropriate. If you compare what scholars are doing in Mormon Studies to what the same scholars do in any other field of study the "no cigar" is not a valid response. If you don't want to use the same rules that OT scholars use...then you have to take down all of OT scholarship. All scholars have to work with Hebrew consonants. All of their conclusions are based on the "NHM" s of Hebrew. You can't just pick and choose which religion is allowed to use a common methodology without bringing up a very legitimate question of bigotry.

So back up and define which methods all scholars should be using.

[t2t2]

t2t2 wants proof. He COULD go back and read Nibley's work, but he wants us to lay it all out for him. Don't have time, sorry.

Honestly...if someone can't present a single thing here on their own what reason would I have for reading more Nibley? For the record...I want solid evidence. Not proof. There's a difference.

So away from the other names I have challenged (without a single reply) let's now deal with the new ones you bring to the table.

Horihor. In the Bible we find Hori, Horites, Horeb, Hormah, Hor, Hor-hagidgad, Horims, Horem, Horonite, Horonaim, Korah, Korhites, Korathites, Kore, etc.

Does this one really seem far and removed from the names Joseph had in front of him in the Bible?

The other point is that Korihor is only as close to Horihor as you want to make it. My name's Tommy. If someone writes a book 2000 years from now (and the name Tommy is no longer around) and uses the name Bommy - I hope no one thinks he miraculously knew that name. Especially if the names Sammy and Tom, etc. ARE known and as close as he got was Bommy.

Aha Ahab, Ahasbai, Ahaziah, Aharah, Ahaz, Aharhel, Ahasuerus, Ahava, aha (aha, aha - Psalms 70:3), Ajah, Asa, Ara, Anah, etc.

Same thing.

[Magyar]

t2t2 wants proof. He COULD go back and read Nibley's work, but he wants us to lay it all out for him. Don't have time, sorry.

But layman as I am, I have read for myself, in non-Mormon histories, about the Egyptian king Aha, as well as Horihor (not that big a stretch from Korihor).

Two bulls eyes that I have validated for myself.

Question from the pickle jar: does the same paradigm apply to deceased apologists as applies to deceased prophets?

Another question from the pickle jar: Can we allow our apologists, dead and living, any leeway? What an apologist labels a "hit" may be a critic's "close but no cigar". The distance from Nahom to NHM is either incredibly close or miles apart, depending on the paradigm of the person making the determination, incredibly close to an apologist is miles apart to a critic. The same with all the other examples. Anything less than a direct hit is subject to weight via paradigm, and thus far, there have been no direct hits.

Huh?

Do I need to mail you the books in which I have found non-Mormons writing about the ancient Egyptian king Aha and the priest Horihor?

[rameumptom]

Here are a few more evidences.

In 1961, an ancient cave was discovered by workers building roads about 22 miles south of Jerusalem. Within the cave were found cave drawings in the Old Hebrew script and drawings of humans and boats. Many scholars consider seafaring motifs so far inland and away from any major waters as out of the ordinary.

The inscriptions and drawings are found in a place entitled, Khirbet Beit Lei. The date of the inscriptions is dated to about 600 BC by Dr. Frank Moore Cross, an eminent expert in the field and professor of Hebrew at Harvard. He has translated the three inscriptions as:

1. "I am Yahweh thy God: I will accept the cities of Judah, and will redeem Jerusalem."

2. "Absolve (us) O merciful God! Absolve (us) O Yahweh!"

3. "Deliver (us) O Lord."

The name of the place is very important. Khirbet means Ruins and Beit means House. Lei is pronounced "Lay-Hee" or "Lee-Hi". So we get the name, "The Ruins of Lehi's House."

==================

Next, I refer you to Michael D Coe's "Breaking the Maya Code."

The Book of Mormon (and to some extent, the Bible) are well known for the common term: "It came to pass." We now find this to be extremely common in Maya scripts, as well. The Maya term, "iual ut" literally means "and then it came to pass." And the term, "utiy" means "it had come to pass." (pp 240-241). A good example of this is Stela 3 at Piedras Negras uses the term 4 times in 51 glyphs

===================

article showing tie between Peru and Egypt: Peruvian Heart, by Fred Jueneman, R & D Online Magazine, 3 November 1997

Peruvian heart

===================

From: Cow Town or Royal Capitol? Evidence For Iron Age Jerusalem, Nadav Na'aman, Biblical Archaeological Review, July/August 1997, p. 45 - we get the following on Israel's ties with Egypt and a version of "Reformed Egyptian":

"Inscribed potsherds (ostraca) from the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.E. (Before Common Era, or B.C.), found in both Israel and Judah, provide evidence for writing in the tenth century B.C.E. "These ostraca contain Hebrew characters as well as signs and numerals in hieratics-a cursive form of Egyptian hieroglyphics.

"Curiously, these hieratic signs do not appear in contemporaneous documents of Israel's neighbors, even though Egypt's relations with Philistia and Phoenicia in the ninth and tenth centuries B.C.E. were much closer than those with Israel.

"Moreover, no eighth- or seventh-century Egyptian parallels have been found for many of the signs on the Hebrew ostraca."

Also on Reformed Egyptian is the Akedah Pendant. It shows Abraham sacrificing Isaac on one side. On the other side of the pendant we find writing that is "extremely enigmatic: The letters can be clearly read (in Byzantine Aramaic script, but they form only meaningless sequences that have not as yet been deciphered. It is possible that the writing on th pendant uses Aramaic characters to express a different language altogether; or it may be that the pendant is inscribed in a kind of code" ("Magnificent Obsession," Hershel Shanks, Biblical Archaeological Review, v22 n3, May/June 1996, pg 31).

============================

People criticize us for the BoM teaching of Christ/Messiah prior to his birth. Yet, here we see the same in DSS writings:

fr. 1, col. 2, l. 1 (E&W p. 23)

"... the heavens and the earth shall obey His Messiah"

fr. 1 col. 2, l. 8 (E&W p. 23)

"He will release the captives, make the blind see, raise up the ..."

fr. 1, col. 2, l. 12 (E&W p. 23)

"He will heal the sick, resurrect the dead, and to the Meek announce glad tidings."

fr. 1, col. 2, l. 13 (E&W p. 23)

"He will lead the [Ho]ly Ones; He will shepherd [th]em."

[Ho]ly Ones = Aram. QDWSYM = gr. hagioi, usually translated as "saints" in the NT)

2. 4Q285, "The Messianic Leader" (E&W, pp. 24-29)

fr. 7, l. 2-5 (E&W p. 29)

(2) "A staff shall rise from the root of Jesse ... (3) ... a Branch of David. They will enter into Judgement with ... (4) and they will put to death the Leader [NSY' = nasi = prince] of the Community, the Bran[ch of David] ... (5) and with woundings, and the priest will command ...

This is thought by many to be a prophecy of the wounding and execution of the Messiah, although, naturally, this is disputed. For recent discussions, see Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR), July/Aug 1992, and Nov./Dec. 1992, pp. 58-65.

4Q246, "The Son of God," (E&W, pp. 68-71

col. 1, l. 9- col. 2, l. 1 (E&W, p. 70)

"(9) He will be called [son of the Gr]eat [God]; by His Name [b- SMH] he will be designated. (1) He will be called the son of God [bRH DY EL]; they will call him son of the Most High."

====================

Mormons teach that the Sacrament preceeded Christ's birth. Let's see what the DSS have to say about it in the Community Rule scroll:

"Every man, born of Israel, who freely pledges himself to join the Council of the Community shall be examined by the Guardian at the head of the Congregation concerning his understanding and his deeds. If he is fitted to the discipline, he shall admit him into the Covenant that he may be converted to the truth and depart from all falsehood; and he shall instruct him in all the rules of the Community.... after he has entered the Council of the Community he shall not touch the pure Meal of the Congregation until one full year is completed, and until he has been examined concerning his spirit and deeds; nor shall he have any share of the property of the Congregation....He shall not touch the Drink of the Congregation until he has completed a second year among the men of the Community. But when the second year has passed, he shall be examined, and if it be his destiny, according to the judgement of the Congregation, to enter the Community, then he shall be inscribed among his brethren the order of his rank for the Law, and for justice, and for the pure Meal; his property shall be merged and he shall offer his counsel and judgement to the Community." (The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, 1987, pp 67-70)

====================

Mormons tie the Tree of Life to the temple and to the virgin Mary: The Dor Scapula is a pictograph from the Phoenicians. It shows an Egyptian/Phoenician ship being blessed in a harbor. Near the harbor is a temple gate and in front of the gate is a man raising "his right hand before a sacred 'tree of life,' a motif common in Phoenician art in the 8th to 6th centuries BC" ("Priestly Blessing of a Voyage," Ephraim Stern, Biblical Archaelogical Review, v21 n1, Jan/Feb 95, pg 53).

At the recent Library of Congress symposium on Joseph Smith, Margaret Barker spoke on the ancient use of the Tree of Life in the First Temple (and how it was later removed), and how it represented God's consort, Wisdom.

======================

The Bat Creek stone, found in an Indian mound in 1889 by the Smithsonian Institution's Bureau of American Ethnology, believed initially to have Cherokee letters on it. In the 1960s, some researchers noted that when a photo of the stone was held upside down, it looked like Phoenician and Canaanite scripts. The letters were similar to those used in the 4th century BC on letter seals and in the 11Q paleo Leviticus in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In English, the translation is: "But for the Judeans" or "A comet for the Judeans." It is believed to be dated to the 1st or 2nd century AD.

Two bracelets that were found with the stone were made of leaded yellow brass, showing the use of brass/copper by ancient Americans (as supported by the BoM).

=======================

The term "Land of Jerusalem" is used in the BoM to describe where Jesus is born. Criticized for decades by anti-Mormons, until the DSS and "Pseudo- Jeremiah" (4Q385) was found. Here we have Jeremiah, a contemporary of Lehi, using the term "land of Jerusalem", because the land of Judah has greatly shrunk due to the conquests of the Assyrians and Babylonians.

=============

So, here I have used several ancient documents, including several of the DSS, to show the BoM is an ancient document. Either Joseph was REALLY a lucky guesser (I bet you can't do it), or he was inspired by God. I believe it is easier to believe he was inspired of God.

[rameumptom]

t2t2 wants proof. He COULD go back and read Nibley's work, but he wants us to lay it all out for him. Don't have time, sorry.

But layman as I am, I have read for myself, in non-Mormon histories, about the Egyptian king Aha, as well as Horihor (not that big a stretch from Korihor).

Two bulls eyes that I have validated for myself.

Question from the pickle jar: does the same paradigm apply to deceased apologists as applies to deceased prophets?

Another question from the pickle jar: Can we allow our apologists, dead and living, any leeway? What an apologist labels a "hit" may be a critic's "close but no cigar". The distance from Nahom to NHM is either incredibly close or miles apart, depending on the paradigm of the person making the determination, incredibly close to an apologist is miles apart to a critic. The same with all the other examples. Anything less than a direct hit is subject to weight via paradigm, and thus far, there have been no direct hits.

For decades many Biblical minimalists said there was no "proof" of king David. With the Merneptah stele, we find the term "House of David" (BT DWD) dating back to almost his reign.

Minimalists, in attempting to deny his existence, have tried to twist the evidence around to something else. For them, the evidence is "miles" away. t2t2, are you ready and willing to go with the skeptics of the Bible as quickly as you are for Mormon skeptics?

[t2t2]

Lehi's House:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=186

And it came to pass:

I'd have to see more on this but I think this phrase, or one similar (and "similar" is likely as close as it gets in Mayan as well) could be found in any language. "And so it was", etc. I can think of at least 1 phrase in Korean that is very similar.

Peruvian mummies

They mummified people in quite a few countries around the world. The only connection here is the removal of the heart. But since sacrificial rites associated with the hearts already existed this is no surprise. Is it to you?

Akedah Pendant and reformed Egyptian

Again - this is as I would expect. You can find mixed written languages all over the world - especially when several countries are major trading partners. Pick up any Korean newspaper. They have used both their own and Chinese combined for centuries. I've even seen trade contracts where both Korean and English texts are found.

People criticize us for the BoM teaching of Christ/Messiah prior to his birth.

You can find such in the Old Testament as well. Isaiah, for example. No - what people criticize is the seeming abandonment of the law of Moses hundreds of years prior to Jesus' appearance.

Mormons teach that the Sacrament preceeded Christ's birth. Let's see what the DSS have to say about it in the Community Rule scroll:

Hmm...seems like quite a stretch to call that sacrament. I don't see any mention of Jesus in there.

Let me go get lunch....I'll come back to the rest.