Glass & Steel in the Book of Mormon, why a problem?

[Guest]

You completely missed my point. The Book of Mormon fits perfectly with mound-builder mythology. That has nothing to do with geography and everything to do with local beliefs. It's like saying that Smokey and the Bandit fits perfectly with the CB/trucker craze of the mid-seventies.

Your 1842 quote indicates that Joseph Smith favored a hemispheric model, which is not a surprise to anyone. Mound-builder mythology was big in the early 19th century in the northeastern US. Ethan Smith wrote about it, Josiah Priest wrote about it, Solomon Spaulding wrote about it, and so did Joseph Smith.

Oh please. I've already pointed out that Joseph Smith didn't seem to have any idea where the Book of Mormon took place and endorsed and stated many ideas. There were competing theories published as early as 1832. Also, Joseph Smith's response to Stephen's and Catherwood's book, "Travels in Central America", Chiapas, and Yucatan was, "He (Joseph Smith) identified the location of the land of Zarahemla, and the small neck of land. The ruins of Palenque and the ruins of Quirigua and other mesoamerican ruins were named by Joseph Smith as on time cities of the Book of Mormon." To state that he already had a preconceived notion of the geography when he supposedly wrote the Book of Mormon (ie the mound-builders did it in the study with the wrench) is farcical. IF that were true, why would he allow all these competiting theories to be presented and not put a stop to it early on? Why would he wander from location to location like he seems to do? In fact, it is preposterous to rely on Joseph Smith's understanding of the dimensions of geography of the North and South American continent itself. Frankly, he just wasn't that well traveled nor knowledgable. The Book of Mormon's descriptions are of a relatively small land area (within walking distance) and it simply could not have possibly covered that great of a distance given the technology of the time.

You really need to do some reading, particularly about the mound-builders and deutero-Isaiah. The work of scholars is to you speculation, but your belief that the text of the Book of Mormon doesn't support use of high-heat technologies is, what?

I'm not the one saying when a bunch of scholoar speculate as to when parts of Isaiah were written is proof positive that the Book of Mormon can't be true. You can't have me take any of that seriously. FACT: Isaiah lived and died before the Nephites left. Let's deal with the facts here please and not absurd assertions based on the most tenuous of speculation as to when things were actually written.

[_Tobin]

Bump for Tobin

And ignored. If I wish to respond to you, I will.

[_Runtu]

I'm not the one saying when a bunch of scholoar speculate as to when parts of Isaiah were written is proof positive that the Book of Mormon can't be true.

Neither am I. You have a really annoying habit of putting words into my mouth. There is no proof that the Book of Mormon isn't true, and I have never said there was. My background is in textual criticism and literature, and I understand the evidence for a post-exilic deutero-Isaiah. It is not speculation. Sure, some people don't accept the consensus, but there is a broad and strong consensus, for good reason.

You can't have me take any of that seriously. FACT: Isaiah lived and died before the Nephites left. Let's deal with the facts here please and not absurd assertions based on the most tenuous of speculation as to when things were actually written.

I wouldn't say that's a fact at all. It's clear that the later chapters of Isaiah were written after the exile because they speak of people (by name) and events that postdate the exile. The author speaks of life in exile and prophesies about when they will return from exile. There is good reason to believe that the book of Isaiah was not all written before the exile. It's not speculation, and it's certainly not tenuous.

[_Buffalo]

To state that he already had a preconceived notion of the geography when he supposedly wrote the Book of Mormon (ie the mound-builders did it in the study with the wrench) is farcical. IF that were true, why would he allow all these competiting theories to be presented and not put a stop to it early on? Why would he wander from location to location like he seems to do?

Joseph latched on to anything that would support the validity of the Book of Mormon. As far as having a geography in mind when he wrote it, well...

I'm not the one saying when a bunch of scholoar speculate as to when parts of Isaiah were written is proof positive that the Book of Mormon can't be true. You can't have me take any of that seriously. FACT: Isaiah lived and died before the Nephites left. Let's deal with the facts here please and not absurd assertions based on the most tenuous of speculation as to when things were actually written.

Yes, Isaiah lived and died before the Nephites left. But Deutero-Isaiah (quoted on the brass plates) wasn't written by Isaiah, but by an anonymous author, many decades after the fall of Jerusalem. That's a fact. It's quite obvious you aren't familiar with this issue.

[_Runtu]

The first time I ever heard of the deutero-Isaiah issue was when a BYU ancient scripture professor brought it up when he was teaching our Gospel Doctrine class. He said there was no good answer for it, as it's clearly post-exilic. At the time I didn't realize the implications of it. But, no, this is not particularly controversial, unless you're a Mormon apologist.

[_Tobin]

Joseph latched on to anything that would support the validity of the Book of Mormon.. As far as having a geography in mind when he wrote it, well...

And this disproves my assertion how?

Yes, Isaiah lived and died before the Nephites left. But Deutero-Isaiah (quoted on the brass plates) wasn't written by Isaiah, but by an anonymous author, many decades after the fall of Jerusalem. That's a fact. It's quite obvious you aren't familiar with this issue.

And I suppose you have proof of that? Like a copy of the original words of Isaiah? Otherwise don't give me the line, "That's a fact". It is speculation and it may be informed speculation, but it remains just that and it is NOT a fact.

[_Buffalo]

The first time I ever heard of the deutero-Isaiah issue was when a BYU ancient scripture professor brought it up when he was teaching our Gospel Doctrine class. He said there was no good answer for it, as it's clearly post-exilic. At the time I didn't realize the implications of it. But, no, this is not particularly controversial, unless you're a Mormon apologist.

I've heard a lot of stories like that. There has to be a load of NOM profs at BYU.

[_Runtu]

I've heard a lot of stories like that. There has to be a load of NOM profs at BYU.

I find it fascinating how what is an interesting but noncontroversial point for everyone else is something that must be denied and attacked to shore up belief in the Book of Mormon. It's very strange.

[_Buffalo]

And this disproves my assertion how?

You asked if Joseph had something in mind when he wrote the Book of Mormon. That's closest match to Book of Mormon names and places you'll find anywhere in the world - Joseph Smith's back yard.

Yes, Isaiah lived and died before the Nephites left. But Deutero-Isaiah (quoted on the brass plates) wasn't written by Isaiah, but by an anonymous author, many decades after the fall of Jerusalem. That's a fact. It's quite obvious you aren't familiar with this issue.

And I suppose you have proof of that? Like a copy of the original words of Isaiah? Otherwise don't give me the line, "That's a fact". It is speculation and it may be informed speculation, but it remains just that and it is NOT a fact.

Read Isaiah 40–55. You'll notice it addresses many (then) current events, including some of the actions by Cyrus the Great. References to current events are quite helpful in establishing when a document was written.

If you found a document talking about how great The White Stripes were, you'd kind of have to assume that it dated to no earlier than 1997, yes? And if someone claimed that it was written in 1940, what might you conclude about that claim?

Again, it's clear that you're quite ignorant about this subject. I suggest you look into it before attempting to refute it.

[_Buffalo]

I've heard a lot of stories like that. There has to be a load of NOM profs at BYU.

I find it fascinating how what is an interesting but noncontroversial point for everyone else is something that must be denied and attacked to shore up belief in the Book of Mormon. It's very strange.

That's really the case with all Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham anachronisms, isn't it.