Origins of the Book of Mormon

[_SatanWasSetUp]

You know his background. He was telling tales since the time he was a boy,

Do you undestand where those stories came from? He was being tutored by angels.

LOL. Sorry, but that sounds rediculous. I know why you believe it because I did once, but once you step outside the box and examine this stuff with the same critical thinking you examine everything else with, it really does sound funny. No offense.

[_karl61]

how about he got a copy of "view of the hebrews" and studied it out in his mind. and then began dictating the Book of Mormon. So much of Joseph's unconscious mind, things he read, things saw, things he heard, things he thought about, were in the book. We won't even address taking a break and copying Isaiah and the parts of the New Testament. Well, I guess we could.

After reading View of the Hebrews, I didn't see how it could have had any substantial influence.

Indians came from Israel
full battle dress
great white god visits
both books reportedly copy Isaiah

I just received studies of the Book of Mormon yesterday in the mail so I need to read up but in American Apocrypha - there is an essay on B.H. Roberts and the list of similarites that he made just goes on and on...it might have been the final straw for him.

From memory (it was close to a year ago when I read it), the overall differences outweighed the loose correlations. There was also much more in there (the various customs of the Native Americans and the parallels to Israelite customs, the language parallels, etc.) that would seemingly be advantageous to have included in the Book of Mormon. Also, VoH focused heavily on the lost tribes, whereas Book of Mormon doesn’t. I don’t remember anything in VoH of a “white god” visiting(?) It also dwells rather heavily on the destruction of the temple, which (given the prevalence in VoH) would have made its way into the Book of Mormon if it was influential in the creation of the Book of Mormon narrative.

As for the Isaiah passages, I seem to remember VoH quoting different aspects of Isaiah than the Book of Mormon.

Let me know what BH Roberts correlations are (if you get a chance) as I haven't read his little study. In my brief readings of his life though, it seemed that the anachronisms troubled him much more than any potential Book of Mormon influencing source.

Hi Doctor Steuss:


There is an essay by George D. Smith “ B.H.Roberts: Book of Mormon Apologist in
American Apocrypha:

“1. Both books maintain that American Indians descended from ancient Hebrew tribes: Ethan Smith wrote that the descended from the Lost Ten Tribes, whereas Joseph Smith limited American Indian Ancestry to two Hebrew families, headed by Lehi and Ishmael.
2) Both open with a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem
3) Both tell of inspired prophets among ancient Americans
4Both quote extensively and nearly exclusively from Isaiah.
5> Both describe ancient Americans as a highly civilized people
6) Both announce the mission of the American nation in the last days to gather these remnants of the House of Israel and bring them to Christianity, thereby hastening the advent of the Millennium predicted in the Bible
7) Both mention the “stick of Joseph” and the “stick of Ephraim” which Ethan Smith used to symbolize the Jews and the lost tribes; Joseph Smith advertized the Book of Mormon as “the stick of Joseph taken from the hand of Ephraim:
8) both refer to the ancient Urim and Thummim, which Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Mormon;
9) Both Smiths referred to Quetzalcoatl, the legendary, white bearded Aztec god. Ethan Smith described him as a “type of Christ” but Joseph Smith saw in the legend evidence that Christ had come to the new world.”


" furthermore, Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith's distant cousin and Book of Mormon scribe, lived in Poultney for twenty-two years up to 1825, five years before the Book of Mormon was published; and Cowdery's family attended the congregation which EthanSmith led from 1821 to 1826"

"Smith's book was 'published in Poultney', Vermont"

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Let me know what BH Roberts correlations are (if you get a chance) as I haven't read his little study. In my brief readings of his life though, it seemed that the anachronisms troubled him much more than any potential Book of Mormon influencing source.

And they should. Anachronisms are an obvious clue to a fraud. It's been a while since I've read it, but If I recall correctly in The Age of Reason, Payne relies primarily on anachronisms to decontruct the Bible.

[_karl61]

One small light bulb went on this week (and I'm sure someone wrote it before) but when Spaniards came to see this new people, the Indians were still living in the stone age not an age of Iron and no evidence of ever living in the age of Iron.

Another thing was that B.H. Roberts wanted the Brethren to get some answers to was why is there no evidence that Hebrew or Egyptian was written or spoken in the Americas. These were 'advanced' languages. How could such languages be melted down into 150 different languages as languages change very slowly. The only evidence (thought provided) after three days with the Twelve was each one standing up and bearing their testimony that the Book of Mormon was true. B.H. Roberts was really concerned and mostly for the youth of the church. He mentions a sorryful heart if they can't find the answers for these questions. He was right. It is devestating when that someone flicks the light and you see the room - likely nothing there or ever has been there.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Hi Doctor Steuss:


There is an essay by George D. Smith “ B.H.Roberts: Book of Mormon Apologist in
American Apocrypha:

Thank you for posting this. Just a few thought that I have.

“1. Both books maintain that American Indians descended from ancient Hebrew tribes: Ethan Smith wrote that the descended from the Lost Ten Tribes, whereas Joseph Smith limited American Indian Ancestry to two Hebrew families, headed by Lehi and Ishmael.

The only correlation is they both focus on Israelites. I’m not sure why G. Smith (too many Smiths here) is calling Lehi’s/Ishmael’s families “ancient Hebrew tribes.”

2) Both open with a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem

VoH is speaking about 70 CE though. in my opinion, this is an important distinction (although I readily admit that this distinction may not be all that persuasive to others).

3) Both tell of inspired prophets among ancient Americans

This could potentially be a good correlation. However, what's the point of writing scripture if it doesn't have prophets in it?

4Both quote extensively and nearly exclusively from Isaiah.

This is true (for the most part). If I recall correctly, Ethen Smith does not quote “nearly exclusively” from Isaiah. They also seem to (again from memory… I apologize if I am wrong here) quote from different aspects of Isaiah.

5> Both describe ancient Americans as a highly civilized people

This is a strong correlation in my opinion.

6) Both announce the mission of the American nation in the last days to gather these remnants of the House of Israel and bring them to Christianity, thereby hastening the advent of the Millennium predicted in the Bible

I’m not sure I know what Book of Mormon verses this could be referring to (unless it’s referring to the overall Book of Mormon message of the “…convincing of Jew and Gentile…”). The gathering of the lost tribes of Israel seems to be more-so a D&C phenomenon in Mormonism (I might be missing something though).

7) Both mention the “stick of Joseph” and the “stick of Ephraim” which Ethan Smith used to symbolize the Jews and the lost tribes; Joseph Smith advertized the Book of Mormon as “the stick of Joseph taken from the hand of Ephraim:

The Book of Mormon doesn’t mention the “stick of Joseph” nor the “stick of Ephraim” (at least that I’m aware of). Overall though, I’m not sure what to make of this one. I’m kind of torn. On one side, the fact that this is a Biblical prophecy makes me think that the Bible would be a far more likely source for the Joseph’s comment in advertising the Book of Mormon than VoH. But, at the same time, it is an interresting correlation. If anyone knows of the source in the Book of Mormon where it mentions “stick of Joseph” and/or “stick of Ephraim,” I’d appreciate it, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t in there.

8) both refer to the ancient Urim and Thummim, which Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Mormon;

Again I’m slightly torn. On the surface this is pretty strong. However, the Bible seems like a more likely candidate for this.

9) Both Smiths referred to Quetzalcoatl, the legendary, white bearded Aztec god. Ethan Smith described him as a “type of Christ” but Joseph Smith saw in the legend evidence that Christ had come to the new world.”

And thus, my memory is jogged. Ethan believed Quetzalcoatl to be remnants of the story of Moses. Quite different in my opinion.

" furthermore, Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith's distant cousin and Book of Mormon scribe, lived in Poultney for twenty-two years up to 1825, five years before the Book of Mormon was published; and Cowdery's family attended the congregation which EthanSmith led from 1821 to 1826"

"Smith's book was 'published in Poultney', Vermont"

This is interesting, and probably more compelling than any of the loose parallels.

I think that the majority of these parallels (with the exception of Cowdery’s family attending Ethan Smith’s congregation) are about on par with many of the parallels LDS apologists use though to establish the BoMs authenticity.

[_charity]

Shall we try to Trump each other? I have served a mission. I have been an adult member for 47 years.

And have you, in all that time, ever once sincerely asked yourself the question, "I wonder if it's really not true?" Have you looked at the evidence from that perspective, with honesty and intergrity? Because the fact is, if you had, you wouldn't be a Mormon today, or you just aren't very smart.

My guess is that you've never really done this, and that's exactly why folks accuse people like you of intellectual dishonesty.

I have asked myself that question. And I have gotten an answer to the question. I have been looking for an article I read titled "The Lightning of Heaven" by Dr. Terryl Givens. I think I can quote him accurately. He said, "There is evidence enough on either side for a life of credible belief or of dismissive denial. The choice we make is based more on who we are than on the quality of the evidence."

You see the evidence and choose the life of dismissive denial. I see the same evidence and choose the life of credible belief.

And I think it says something about who we are that you choose to insult me, accuse me of being dishonest, etc. because we do no agree.

[_charity]

Earlier in my life I think I was a lot like you, I had my Sunbeam Mormon Coloring Book and I could color every problem into the church's favor. But something happened and somehow I learned too much, studied to much, even prayed too much to be able to stay a Mormon. I am so much happier outside of the church.

I still welcome you here, your Mormon PollyAnna comments bring back a lot of memories for me. I need to be reminded of where I have come from occasionally.

I think I know every anti-argument there is out there. I have read them, gone through their evidence, evaluated sources, and held them up to the light of day. A lot of them were like cockroaches, scurried for their dark little corners. Some of them have a whiff of crediblity to them, but they are based on incomplete information and there can't be a conclusion at this time. So, instead of jumping to a premature conclusion as the anti's have, it seems the more prudent course to adopt a wait and see.

If you are happier out of the Church, good for you. And if you decide at some future time you aren't, you can always come back.

[_moksha]

Thanks for the welcome, Pokator. You can spin all you want. You do it a lot! :)

(Does this board have smilies available? I haven't found them.)

Who does not appreciate rotisserie taters? I know I like our friend from Idaho.

Lack of smilies! You have hit upon the one great failing of this board - well that, allowing some naughty language in forums other than the Telestial and not enough fiesty Mormon like yourself. On the other hand, we do have winsome moderators.

[_charity]

Sethbag, I would be one of the last people on earth to say that the Book of Mormon can be PROVEN to be true by any means other than a spiritual witness.

But when you say there is absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon, you have gone over the top and spun out of control. Can't you be honest and admit that there are a few compelling evidences? At least that?

Beastie already commented on Nahom and chiasmus, which as she mentioned, are things that might tie the Book of Mormon to the Old World. What can you offer up as evidence in the New World that the the Book of Mormon story actually belongs?

Where in the continuously-developing narrative of the ancient Americas does the Book of Mormon story belong? What evidence is there in the New World that there were ever Nephites, Lamanites, Mulekites, Jaredites, etc.? Where is the evidence for Christianity in the Americas between 600 BC and 0 AD? Where's the evidence for Christianity in the New World from 0 AD to 400 AD? Where's the evidence for Zarahemla?

Seriously, what actual evidence is there that the Book of Mormon story belongs anywhere in the story of the ancient Americas?

War styles, the climate in relation to war accounts, the system of weights, the use of directional terms. . . .Are you not aware of these?

And none of these are found in the View of the Hebrews. I highly suspect that people who say the two books are similiar haven't read one or the other.

[_charity]

Do you undestand where those stories came from? He was being tutored by angels. [/b]

LOL. Sorry, but that sounds ridiculous. I know why you believe it because I did once, but once you step outside the box and examine this stuff with the same critical thinking you examine everything else with, it really does sound funny. No offense.[/quote]

I know. That is one of the standard false arguments. Dan Vogel is probably the leading proponent. "There are no such things as angels, visions, revelations. Therefore, Joseph Smith made it all up."

Only problem with that, is your argument stands or falls on the basic premise. YOu both buiilt on sand, my friend.