**UPDATE** to Vern Holley Book of Mormon Place Names Theory

[Shulem]

I've also been doing research into the place name Tecumseth which Holly asserted Smith used for inspiration for Teancum.

The fact that Smith sent out emissaries so quickly (1830 & 1831) to preach Mormonism to various Indian tribes such as Seneca and Shawnee suggests his vision was to convert them as quick as possible. It makes me wonder what specific legends or lore Smith was especially knowledgeable about. Surely he was aware of certain Indian traditions from oral and written sources available to him. Recall mother Smith praising her son's knowledge on the subject:

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined: he would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent; their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, and their buildings, with every particular; he would describe their mode of warfare, as also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them.

RECI'TAL, noun [from recite.]

1. Rehearsal; the repetition of the words of another or of a writing; as the recital of a deed; the recital of testimony.
2. Narration; a telling of the particulars of an adventure or of a series of events.
3. Enumeration. [The act of counting or telling a number, by naming each particular.]

It makes perfect sense that young Joseph had knowledge of some key Indian names, especially those that interested him and stuck within his mindset. I get a good laugh how Smith incorporated Greek names (anachronism) along with other wild names to represent his 12 disciples ordained by Jesus in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 19:4). But then later when the 3 special Nephite disciples were promised that they would never die, recall how Smith failed to dictate their names but made up the excuse that God didn't want anyone to know their names, but the truth be told, Joseph couldn't remember the names of the disciples during dictation (3 Nephi 28:35).

Ha ha. Joseph Smith was caught with his pants down while dictating the Book of Mormon. Perhaps his mind was on a certain lady, rather than his wife.

Angola → Angola

How did the name ANGOLA (rooted in the ancient Bantu language) and known for being an African territory as published in maps and globes during Smith's life find its way into the Book of Mormon? It's easy to understand how towns and lands in the Book of Mormon are named after places in the Bible, for example: Joshua, David, Noah, etc; but how does African ANGOLA enter the language of the Nephites in 327 AD?

Is it safe to say that Smith borrowed the name Angola from the African map to add zest for a story in his make-believe Book of Mormon? How hardly does the African name belong therein!

I think this whole thing is a serious red flag in proving a thousand times over how the Book of Mormon is a work of fraud -- it's total nonsense.

[Marcus]

... Lindsey is guilty of sloppy work.

...it only proves that Mormon apologist are often wrong...

No surprise there. Almost every time I look deeper into the footnotes that supposedly support a Mormon point, I find sloppy work, partial quotes that don't accurately reflect underlying points, self-referential (in other words, non-) support, or even outright errors. Simple peer review would eliminate such issues, but it doesn't happen. Over time, these eminently fixible problems point to a common cause: the starting assumptions assume the conclusion, which then forces their research into an insupportable position that some mopologists apparently conclude justifies dishonest work.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I've also been doing research into the place name Tecumseth which Holly asserted Smith used for inspiration for Teancum. Mormon Apologist Jeff Lindsey revealed that Tecumseth didn't even exit during Smith lifetime saying "But could Joseph have known about Tecumseh, Ontario? As a prophet of God, yes, but as a plagiarizer, probably not. You see, there’s a slight problem with Tecumseh, Ontario in this context: it didn’t get that name until 1912. As Wikipedia explains, “Originally known as Ryegate Postal Station when it was first settled in 1792, Tecumseh was renamed in 1912 after the Shawnee tribe leader of the same name. It was officially incorporated as a town in 1921”

But I'm happy to report that Lindsey is guilty of sloppy work. My research has found that not only did Tecumseth exist as a village as early as 1821, I've seen it on a map printed in 1826 https://collections.library.utoronto.ca ... 0_1826_C43 Its in Simcoe County, on the northern shore of Lake Ontario.

Damn I love it when those F***ing Mormon apologist are wrong. None of this proves that Smith used Tecumseh for Teancum...it only proves that Mormon apologist are often wrong.

Another place name is Rama which allegedly inspired Ramah. While I have found Rama on an 1826 map , personally I believe it would have been easier for Smith to merely use the place name Ramah that would have been available in his King James Bible in 1 Samuel 1:19.

Serious question Craig, when are you going to put your research into a paper or present it at Sunstone? Your work is too good not to share!

[Shulem]

Angola → Angola

How did the name ANGOLA

FULL STOP!



I just learned the original 1830 version of the Book of Mormon (p 520) tenders the name as Angelah. But the printers manuscript reads: Angolah. The 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon is when the name Angola makes its first appearance.

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE?

Serious question Craig, when are you going to put your research into a paper or present it at Sunstone? Your work is too good not to share!

It's too early for that, Mr. Chung.

What do you think of the Angola name changes in Book of Mormon? It seems suspicious to me, wouldn't you say?

Please help Shulem understand the problem.

Almost every time I look deeper into the footnotes that supposedly support a Mormon point, I find sloppy work, partial quotes that don't accurately reflect underlying points, self-referential (in other words, non-) support, or even outright errors. Simple peer review would eliminate such issues, but it doesn't happen. Over time, these eminently fixible problems point to a common cause: the starting assumptions assume the conclusion, which then forces their research into an insupportable position that some mopologists apparently conclude justifies dishonest work.

Can you help us understand how Angolah became Angelah which later became Angola? (see previous post)

What is going on with that?

[Limnor]

I see less of a stretch from Angola to Angolah than there is from Oneida to Onidah or Kishkiminetas to Kishkumen. In fact Rama to Ramah is identical in its addition of the -h, and in oral dictation, Angolah and Angola would sound the same.

Angelah, on the other hand, is more difficult to explain or understand. Could it simply reflect a typesetting error? Maybe the o in Angolah in the printer’s manuscript was read as an e when the 1830 edition was typeset, resulting in Angelah?

[Shulem]

I see less of a stretch from Angola to Angolah than there is from Oneida to Onidah or Kishkiminetas to Kishkumen. In fact Rama to Ramah is identical in its addition of the -h, and in oral dictation, Angolah and Angola would sound the same.

The printer's manuscript says "Oneidah" but the actual name printed in the 1830 edition is "Onidah." How did that happen?

Angelah, on the other hand, is more difficult to explain or understand. Could it simply reflect a typesetting error? Maybe the o in Angolah in the printer’s manuscript was read as an e when the 1830 edition was typeset, resulting in Angelah?

I don't know.

[Limnor]

I see less of a stretch from Angola to Angolah than there is from Oneida to Onidah or Kishkiminetas to Kishkumen. In fact Rama to Ramah is identical in its addition of the -h, and in oral dictation, Angolah and Angola would sound the same.

The printer's manuscript says "Oneidah" but the actual name printed in the 1830 edition is "Onidah." How did that happen?

Angelah, on the other hand, is more difficult to explain or understand. Could it simply reflect a typesetting error? Maybe the o in Angolah in the printer’s manuscript was read as an e when the 1830 edition was typeset, resulting in Angelah?

I don't know.

Royal Skousen attributes the change from Oneidah in the printer’s manuscript to Onidah to the typesetter, John Gilbert. Skousen further explains that the typesetter had been influenced by the spelling “Onidah” in Alma 32:4.

If the original was “Oneidah,” there is a pattern of three additions of an -h to place names. Rama/Ramah, Oneida/Oneidah, and Angola/Angolah.

Interesting, if not compelling or conclusive.

[Shulem]

Royal Skousen attributes the change from Oneidah in the printer’s manuscript to Onidah to the typesetter, John Gilbert. Skousen further explains that the typesetter had been influenced by the spelling “Onidah” in Alma 32:4.

Okay, so Royal ascertained that the spelling in the printer's manuscript for Alma 32:4 was “Onidah” but on what approval did John Gilbert have to change the spelling on both occasions later in Alma 47? It seems he would have needed approval from Smith or Cowdery to change the name. This was not a matter of capitalizing or simple punctuation which he was wont to do upon prior approval.

The name was changed and there must be a reason other than the printer felt like doing it. Has Royal fleshed that out? Perhaps there is more to this than Royal leads on. Mormon apologists are snakes in the grass. I don't trust any of them.

There is something to this.

[Marcus]

Almost every time I look deeper into the footnotes that supposedly support a Mormon point, I find sloppy work, partial quotes that don't accurately reflect underlying points, self-referential (in other words, non-) support, or even outright errors. Simple peer review would eliminate such issues, but it doesn't happen. Over time, these eminently fixible problems point to a common cause: the starting assumptions assume the conclusion, which then forces their research into an insupportable position that some mopologists apparently conclude justifies dishonest work.

Can you help us understand how Angolah became Angelah which later became Angola? (see previous post)

What is going on with that?

That particular word is a new one for me, but the fact that an original Book of Mormon word/phrasing/usage got changed is not. For example, Skousen has made a few executive decisions about what word that the Book of Mormon should have in it (as opposed to what JOSEPH SMITH HIMSELF put in it) that just boggle the mind. Who knows how many other changes have been made. I'll take a look.

ETA: I just read your more recent posts, I see you have as much trust as I do in apologetics!!

[Limnor]

Can you help us understand how Angolah became Angelah which later became Angola? (see previous post)

What is going on with that?

That particular word is a new one for me, but the fact that an original Book of Mormon word/phrasing/usage got changed is not. For example, Skousen has made a few executive decisions about what word that the Book of Mormon should have in it (as opposed to what JOSEPH SMITH HIMSELF put in it) that just boggle the mind. Who knows how many other changes have been made. I'll take a look.

ETA: I just read your more recent posts, I see you have as much trust as I do in apologetics!!

I share the distrust, but there is a practical difficulty. Much of the detailed work has been done within a devotional mindset. I just don’t have the time or access to research all of the primary source material.

So if you want to investigate manuscript variants or printing changes or that type of thing, you have to mine the work that’s already been done but distrust or ignore completely the conclusions.

At least that’s how I view it.