Beginning at 2:51:07, your discussion of prefixes in the Fabius and Mormon stories is quite useless. Spalding didn’t invent the use of names with parts. It came right out of the Bible. Dan-iel, Ezek-iel, Isa-iah, Nehem-iah, etc. I gathered the following from a list of proper names in the Bible under “Am-”:
Amalek
Amalekites
Amariah
Aminadab
Amminadab
Ammon
Ammonites
Amnon
Amon
Amorites
Your attempt to link Book of Mormon names with Spalding’s names is unconvincing. I simply do not think the connections you make are significant. Spalding’s Ham-ul does not relate to Joseph Smith’s Am-ulek, the latter of which comes from Mulek; and Amulek is nearly identical to Amalek in the Bible. It certainly doesn’t remind me of “the morphing of Abram to Abraham.” By comparing the two lists of names, one can easily see the style of name-creating is different. Spalding favors the double “oo,” which never appears in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon obviously favors “i” endings, which is absent from Spalding-invented names. Spalding likes “o” endings, a feature not found in the Book of Mormon.
Note that we are comparing the Book of Mormon’s 188 unique names to half that amount in the Fabius story.
“On the right, Am- connects to Lam-, Ram-, and Sam-. On the left, Ham- also connects to Lam-, Ram-, and Sam-.” (2:51:52) The Book of Mormon also connects to Cam-, but more importantly, it has no Ham-. On the other hand, Spalding’s Ham- also connects to Bam-, Gam-, Hab-, Had-, Hak-, Han-, Mam-. You are using the alphabetization and categorization of names and then cherry-picking to make comparisons. In other words, the act of creating the list is what makes the inevitable patterns, and then significance is created by suppressing the differences. The Book of Mormon and Fabius MS should be studied on their own before making comparisons. I see no reason to conclude Spalding was responsible for creating the Book of Mormon names.
“One can easily see Spalding thinking about featuring Gilgah and Gilgash as a deliberate hat tip to The Epic of Gilgamesh.” (2:53:33) The Epic of Gilgamesh wasn’t discovered until 1849 and not deciphered until the 1870s. Gilgah is probably from the Bible’s Gilgal.
You see an unlikely connection between Amnigaddah and Gad, from which you connect four other names that begin with Gad-, among which is Gadianton. From this name, you more reasonably associate Corianton and Morianton, calling them a triad. However, you then jump to another “triad” on the Spalding side—Hambock, Kelsock, Rambock, which are far more remotely connected than the Book of Mormon names. But there is no reason to compare these two groups of names other than the number three. This is very wild.
“But now notice how Nimrod, here at the bottom conspicuously maps to Moonrod and Lakoonrod (on the Fabius story side of the line).” (2:54:02) Nimrod, of course, comes from the Bible and fits with the Jaredite story. The two names from Spalding’s MS have no apparent connection to Nimrod and have double “oo” previously discussed.
“there is a plethora of -ons going on on both sides” (2:54:28). The Book of Mormon has more of it, but this is hardly evidence of a connection. In the Book of Mormon, the internal development of –on makes more internal sense than it does in the Fabius MS, which seems more random: Mormon > Moron > Moroni > Moronihah > Morianton > Corianton > Gadinanton.
“Notice how Greek and/or Roman names appear on both sides, which are totally anachronistic in the Mormon story.” (2:55:53) Antipas comes from the Bible and relates to the other Anti- names: Antipus > Antiparah. Parah also comes from the Bible.
“The best two sole-authorship arguments for this observation are: 1) that Smith deliberately put these Greco-Roman names (Lachoneus, Archeantus, and Antipas) in The Book of Mormon because he believed that his epic visions were true, or 2) that Smith did so because it amused himself to con his future supporters in this way.” (2:55:27) Rather, to Joseph Smith, these were just ancient-sounding names. He probably didn’t know they were Greek. Elsewhere, he didn’t even know that Elias was Greek for Elijah, or Enos for Enoch, Jonas for Jonah.
“A much better explanation is that Spalding loved all of the Greek and Roman mythology that he fully consumed at Plainfield Academy, at Dartmouth College, at the Cherry Valley Academy, and elsewhere; consequently, he didn’t mind dropping in anachronistic names, anachronistic animals, and anachronistic metallurgy.” Really? This not only doesn’t make sense but it sounds a lot like special pleading.
“Mr. Vogel doesn’t see any consistent naming patterns at all between the Fabius story and the Mormon story. Speaking of me, Mr. Vogel says: ‘He spends pages playing with names in The Book of Mormon and Spalding’s writings, manipulating the syllables and dropping letters, attempting to show a relationship, but I found this utterly unconvincing.’” I hope you now have a better understanding of why I find your methodology unconvincing, if not utterly unconvincing.
At 2:57:30, you complain that I unfairly portrayed your methodology of connecting Spalding names with Book of Mormon names and even suggest that my subscribers reconsider their subscriptions. I think the one example I showed was a simplified version, but it wasn’t inaccurate. Note that you didn’t include the chart you are using here in your book. I made my chart from your text (see pp. 195-98). My purpose was to give my listeners a quick example of the type of comparisons you were making between the two sources.
Beginning at 2:57:58, you examine Prince’s article in more detail. I certainly don’t have to endorse every connection he made to consider his main observation valid. Similarly, you don’t have to think all my interpretations are correct to accept the main thesis that the Book of Mormon contains disguised Joseph Smith autobiography.
“Smith, in contrast, had not a jot of Hebrew nor a tittle of general linguistic education at twenty-two.” (3:00:47) Nothing in the Book of Mormon makes this imperative. I agree that Mathoni was probably built from Mattew: Matt + -on +i. The –i ending links it with other Book of Mormon names, but not the Fabius MS. And there are no –hah endings in Spalding’s MS, while the Book of Mormon makes good use of it, possibly as a variant of –ah in Bible names.
Dan Vogel Responds to Lars Nielsen (Part 9) – Inventing Names
- dan vogel
- Valiant A
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:37 am
- Moksha
- God
- Posts: 7702
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
- Location: Koloburbia
Re: Dan Vogel Responds to Lars Nielsen (Part 9) – Inventing Names
Did Mr. Nielsen also assign the quality of pious intent to Spaulding?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
- dan vogel
- Valiant A
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:37 am