At the request of our Mormon friends here at Mormon Coffee, today’s topic for discussion is, The Book of Mormon: True or False? Before the discussion starts, however, I need to lay down some ground rules.
- It is understood by all here that Mormons ultimately believe the Book of Mormon is true due to personal revelation. For this discussion, possession of LDS testimonies will be assumed. Therefore, the bearing of these testimonies in the following comments is not permitted.
- When making evidentiary statements of fact, please provide supporting source references.
- Please dialog here in your own words; do not fill your comments with lengthy quotes from others.
- Remember (and follow) the Mormon Coffee comment policy that calls for the summation of main points (in your own words) before linking to another source.
On a recent Mormon Coffee thread, after being asked about external evidence supporting the Book of Mormon, an LDS commenter wrote:
“[Y]ou said, ‘What is the most compelling piece if archeological evidence that proves to you that the Book of Mormon is true?’ I will responde with, ‘Oh you of little faith’. If we needed scientific/archeological proof to mandate and coincide our beliefs, we would be cast into the same category as the pharisees and saducees.”
That opinion notwithstanding, this discussion will focus on evidence outside of testimony for the Book of Mormon. Another Latter-day Saint who participates in the conversations at Mormon Coffee has made this argument (taken from a few different comments of his):
“[T]he question of the Book of Mormon is absolutely black and white- it is either what it claims to be, or it is not. If it is not what it claims, the whole religion falls. If it is true, the church stands as THE Church of Christ.”
“If it [the Book of Mormon] is true (an ancient record of scripture), JS was a prophet. If he was a prophet, the church is what it claims to be, etc., etc.”
“Your claim that there is no evidence for the BOM is certainly persistent. I await the thread that allows us to discuss the book straight up….the whole of the LDS church depends on the Book of Mormon being true- every claim depends on it, so I would think that would be a natural center of debate.”
Okay. To get us started, Michael Coe, Yale University’s renowned Professor of Anthropology emeritus, was interviewed for PBS’s Frontline program The Mormons. After describing some of the major problems facing Mormon archeologists who are seeking to find evidence that the Book of Mormon is true, Dr. Coe said,
“I don’t really know how my friends that are Mormon archaeologists cope with this non-evidence, the fact that the evidence really hasn’t shown up — how they make the jump from the data to faith or from faith back to the data, because the data and the faith are two different worlds. There’s simply no way to bring them together. …”
Apart from personal revelation, how do the readers of Mormon Coffee (both Mormons and non-Mormons) cope with the “non-evidence” spoken of by Dr. Coe?
—
For an interesting look at issues surrounding the historicity of the Book of Mormon see the Sunstone article, “Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates – Part 1, A Guide for the Overwhelmed,” by John-Charles Duffy.
s tight for space?” I would argue that Isaiah was a great prophet of the Old Testiment, and I find it interesting that you are questioning Nephi’s motives for including his words. Maybe it’s because those words are of utmost importance, and Nephi wanted to make sure his people new about. Your point has little to do with the Validity of the BofM.
The good DRMArcus said: “In my opinion, the most damning evidence against the Book of Mormon is the Mormon’s sugestion that the Hill Cumorah in NY isn’t really THE>/i> Hill Cumorah. My goodness! Isn’t that where the prophet found the golden tablets? How could it be anywhere else? This one simple item should be enough to wake folks up to the fact that the BoM (and the LDS Church) is an elaborate fabrication.” I think this was the point of his post. I would suggest you do some studying on the history of that area and figure out if someone died there 2000 years ago, if their bones would still be found there anyways, due to decomposition (happens faster when left in the open, than if buried), weather (hurricanes, floods) etc. I guess we never found the bones of the Egyptians who were killed in the red sea (whoops… I mentioned the BIBLe).
Rickey B said:”If the majority of the BoM is nothing more than the Bible quoted word for word then how does this help us get closer to God as Joseph Smith so boldly claimed, reading the BoM would get us closer to God, than any other book?” First, the “majority of the BofM is not quoted from the Bible. And the idea that they have similar teachings/sayings is evidence that God is consistent… If he revealed different things to different prophets, that would be like the “Christian” (as you define it) world today… confused. If you were trying to reach your child who had fallen down a well, and all she/he had was one block to step on, wouldn’t it help if she could somehow get a second block to help her get “closer” to getting out? You see where I’m going…
Cont.
LDSTITT – Made good comments about the passover, etc. I don’t kow the answer to that one. I’ll see what I can do. I don’t think that disproves the book though. You all spend time saying it’s TOO similar to the Bible, then you criticize when it’s not similar enough. Interesting…
Aaron brought up the way the BofM was translated. I would suggest that God will reveal things how he will reveal things. You believe the “unbelievable” things that occur in the Bible, yet you can’t fathom GOd revealing things through seer stones. I happen to believe the unbelievable things in the Bible, and I don’t limit God in any way. But that’s me hving faith, and I know that’s not allowed.
I can’t answer all the posts, but I’ll have one more post today, as my time is short. What i will say is so far, many of the critics on this website support ideas that only faith and testimony can support. Yet they refuse to accept that others have faith and testimony about something that they don’t. Just because you don’t believe it, doesn’t make it false. The BofM is true whether we can prove it to you or not. Or the BofM is false whether you can prove it to me or not. That’s the beauty of it… you can’t prove anything, and neither can we.
But it’s a fun topic for me, and as I see VALID arguments, I will try to respond in a timely fashion. I’m traveling for most of today though, so don’t think I’m hiding…
Oh, and I have a testimony that the BofM…. Just kidding, don’t get all worked up 🙂
Michelphelps- I am not saying that it’s the only basis… if you would’ve read my post I said it is the most important. No matter what we claim to know here on the earth, God has the power to reveal and teach more than any professor, scientist, teacher, etc. So I trust God’s response to my prayers more than I trust the words or Dr. Coe, or any other professional. That’s all I need, but luckily, that’s not all I have. Comprende…
Oh, and I thought anti-mormon was supposed to be avoided, not the word anti all together.
[The comment policy states: “Use of the pejorative term…is not allowed. Comments that include the term will at the very least be filtered by our profanity filter and the comment may be entirely deleted. Do not attempt to work around the filter by using aliases for banned terms.”]
ReggieW: glad to see you are awake and well and your heart working (consider this thread your ‘cardio’ for the next week or so; DR.FALCON will send you the bill.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious: Biblical content IN THE BOM is evidence (pro or con, I suppose, depending on your view) is a discussion point ABOUT the BofM. STeveH was starting to compare the relative strenths/weaknesses of phys. evidence of the two books, and that’s interesting and important, but another thread altogether. A thread that I hope we do some day, the Bible can take the heat. Is this paragraph clarifying?? I don’t want you to think the deck is stacked against you in some unfair way. If you have the kinds of evidence that Mosser and Owens were gushing about, now is a good time and place to showcase it. Have THEM put in a post or two in your favor, THAT would raise a few eyebrows. I’m not so sure they bet on the right pony, but we’ll see.
FoF: about the movie thing, I’m sure your big guys would have LOVED to show something from the NY area, problem is it’s just a mound of dirt with (perhaps) some Native american stuff inside. No signs of the huge battle, no weird remains or artifacts, no battle left-overs, NOTHING. Hardly a ‘faith promoting’ trove of memorabilia. What’s left except showing SOMETHING?? To those not quick to ask follow up questions, why not show mesoamerican stuff and hope no one gets too snoopy about it ?? I’m not saying they are being devious, I think their options are precious few as to movie content, and those options are ALL problematic. We’ll see how problematic in the next week or so.
Last thot: we’re just looking and asking for the kind of stuff B.H.Roberts and Tom F. were looking for, yes, we are skeptics, but these are fair questions and topics. AT least I think so. GERMIT
Reggie, I know your frustrated with not being able to use your testimony here. But even if you could, who would that make any difference to? You and the other LDS on this blog, that’s it.
So who are you trying to prove the Mormon faith to anyway? Whenever a new LDS poster comes on here to defend their faith by bearing their testimony, the most you would get out of the evangelicals on here is a big yawn, thinking “thats nice.”
My point is if thats, as you say “..what we find to be the most important piece to knowing that the BofM is true..” the best thing you got, it will be hugely ineffective. You want to bolster the faith of others with your testimony? I suggest going to some LDS feel good forums.
I grow weary of LDS defenders on here complaining about how this blog is run. If you don’t like it, we aren’t going to twist your arm to stay.
Not trying to be rude here by any means, just stating what I hope is the obvious.
I appreciate you preparing us for some hard hitting evidence though, looking forward to it!
As far as the meso-america/cumorah issues – it sure would be easier if those silly prophets would have kept their revelations/opinions to themselves wouldn’t it? It would also be easier on evangelical arguments if the bulk of LDS members accepted their words as truth and trust exactly what they had said “They will never lead you astray”.
When my apostate wife discussed some issues with her mom about mormonism’s prophetic history, I was surprised to hear of her saying “That doesn’t matter anymore, it was like 150 years ago.”
It’s like a construction crew saying the foundation wont support what we are building, but that doesn’t matter, we laid it about a year ago.
GB…get a clue about the difference between TRANSLATING and TRANSLITERATING. Consult a dictionary if the terms elude you. Zarahemla is not to be found in Webster’s dictionary THUS it must be a transliteration from the Reformed Egyptian (I’m granting alot there). Bountiful is an English word so it can only be a translation. Get it? Why didn’t he translate all the town names and just one? That is my pathetic question.
Germit…that was hysterical…I think I like Oliver and Zeezrom (assuming one of each)…if there are extra i’m thinking I could make a killing on jerky 🙂
Another linguistic evidence for the authenticity of the BOM is the chiastic structures found throughout the text. Many here have laughed this off, which is truly stunning and shows how little they know about this linguistic tool. This poetic structure is most often associated with Hebrew and Greek texts, but has been found elsewhere. There are a multitude of types and degrees of these structures, and they are found throughout the BOM. One of the most impressive is found in Alma 36. It is a 52 line inverted parallel with the central pivot point being “Jesus Christ the Son of God.” Explaining this structure does it no justice, nor do the outlines I have seen online. Seeing it fully drawn out is truly impressive. These structures were not recognized fully in America until the late 19th century.
Another note: familiar with the Charles Anthon transcript? The only Reformed-Egyptian characters from the plates that we have in written form. If you take this transcript and lay it out with the symbols in the order Joseph transcribed them from the plates, the sequence (which we have no translation for) forms a very clear chiasmus. Please explain that! (Several chiastic structures in the New Testament are broken up in the KJV and others. Guess what happens with the Joseph Smith translation- yep, they fit back into beautiful chiastic, poetic structure).
Word frequencies: simple example. Take a simple, text-insensitive word like “and.” Calculate the frequency with which it is used over a large sample of text and you can find interesting things. Take large samples of writings of JS, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, anybody else. They use the word “and” about every 26 words VERY consistently. Test several texts of any type. Then try Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekial- they used the word every 16 words, a very unique frequency among modern and ancient writings outside the OT. Guess the frequency of the word “and” in the BOM- 16!!! Interesting.
LDSTITANIC: LOL times 1000; dude you are either crazier than Chris Farley ever was on Friday night, or braver than William Wallace (dang it…now I’ve got LDSTITANIC in a KILT for the rest of the afternoon….dang it dang it……)
If asking sharp questions on MC is hate speech, what are they going to do to you after you make jerky out of their CURELOMS AND CUMMOMS ?? If you need sanctuary, get my e-mail from the mods and we can hide you next to the tapirs-that-look-remarkably-like-horses.
PS: you don’t want to go for ZELPH ?? That’s the coolest name.
Reggie: faith has been described as the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen, but that doesn’t mean that the SEEN and HEARD and FELT cannot be used in the service of faith. Or the intellectually known, for that matter. Hang in there, dude. GERMIT
The BOM quotes a prophet Zenos a fair amount. He was a prophet in Jerusalem sometime just before Lehi left and is not quoted in the Bible. The longest chapter in the BOM (Jacob 5) quotes Zenos wherein he uses the phrase “nevermost part of the vineyard” 6 times in his allegory concerning the earth. The phrase “nether parts of the earth” (nor anything like it) appears nowhere in the Bible except in Ezekial, where it is included 5 times. Could Ezekial have had access to the writings of Zenos? This would make sense given that they were contemporaries. (Wade Brown, The God Inspired Language of the Book of Mormon, p 245.)
How about sacred writings on metal plates? Examples of ancient Hebrew writings on metal plates: 1. Gold plate engraven with text and placed on the turban of the High Priest (see Exodus 28:36). 2. Discovered in 1970s- First Temple period tombs at Ketef Hinnom- 2 small silver plates dating to 7th century B.C. containing priestly benedictions (Numbers 6) and are the earliest fragments of the biblical text. 3. The romans, in 161 B.C. sent the Jews bronze tablets to keep their record on. But they engraved the document in Bronze. When Simon was High Priest in 140 B.C., they ordered this text be drawn up on bronze tablets and set up in the precinct of the temple for Simon and his sons. This shows that the Jews kept records of important historical documents on bronze plates in the temple. 4. Copper Scroll from Qumran 1C AD containing a list of hidden temple treasures. Shows again the preservation of sacred record by writing on copper/bronze plates and then hiding them. 5. The Hebrew text Sefer ha-Razim (3C AD) has several references to writing on metal plates or amulets.
That is just Hebrew plates- there are tons of others in Greek, Semetic, Italic, all of which usually included either ritual/sacred rites, record of laws, phrophecies, and/or history. Sound familiar?
FoF said
FoF, Who are you? I mean are you some High ranking Mormon Scholar who writes books about the LDS church, or just the avrage Joe Mormon? I ask because You seem to say the battle on hill C, did not take place in New York. Have you read Mormon Doctrine by Bruce M?
He says it did happen in New York, So do I believe him over you? Modern LDS might not like him, but back in His day, he was a well respected scholar.
Reggiey Since you seem to think I am wrong, then tell me in your own words, What teaching(s) are found in the BoM, that are not found in the Bible that will help me draw closer to God, and help in my salvation. Rick b LDS priesthood holder
faithoffathers…in response to the Anthon transcript I don’t think I could do better than UTLM…that document is also currently in the hands of your enemy (the rival Community of Christ)…surprised you would site it as a positive for your side…understand if the Mods wish to delete this but the information is golden!!
[If you try again and summarize the main points readers would find at the link you provided, the link could remain available to all here. Until then…]
Tom Ferguson was not an archeologist or scholar. He was a lawyer from Northern California. His role was really as an “enthusiast and publicist” of Mesoamerican archeology. Those who worked next to him on his trips to Mexico say he had absolutely no patients and no understanding of how archeological research is conducted. Uniformly, those people who worked with him say he naively felt that evidence should just “pop” out at you. Yet Larsen gives him so much credit and weight. His untrained and incautious findings (or lack thereof) are given more weight than a well educated, methodical scholar with whom he worked for many years (Milton Hunter).
The most unfair and untrue part of Larsen’s book is his characterization of Ferguson’s “loss of faith.” According to Ferguson’s son, Larry, he said to him out of the blue one month before his death, “Larry, the Book of Mormon is exactly what Joseph Smith said it is.” He gave a similar testimony to his wife. And in the last year of his life, he wrote the following in copies of the BOM he gave to non-LDS acquaintances:
“We have studied the Book of Mormon for 50 years. We can tell you that it follows only the New Testament as a written witness to the mission, divinity, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And it seems to us that there is no message that is needed by man and mankind more than the message of Christ. Millions of people have come to accept Jesus as the Messiah because of reading the Book of Mormon in a quest for truth. The book is the cornerstone of the Mormon Church. The greatest witness to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is the book itself. But many are the external evidences that support it.” (Larry Ferguson, “The Most Powerful Book,” Dialogue 23/3 (1990): 9).
He told friends he had a “brief” period of doubt about the BOA. He considered suing the Tanners for publishing things without permission. He also claimed some things “coming from him” were forged.
OK titanic, you owe me, name one GERMIT and the other CLUFF, and make them share a doggie bed
this is from the Utah Lighthouse Min article referenced above.
According to archeologists the only written language developed by the American Indians was the Mayan script, which bears absolutely no similarity to the Anthon script.
Professor Michael D. Coe, Yale University, wrote:
“Of all the peoples of the pre-Columbian New World, only the ancient Maya had a complete script: they could write down anything they wanted to, in their own language.” (Breaking the Maya Code, by Michael D. Coe, Thames and Hudson, 1992, preface)
NO SAMPLE OF THE ANTHON TYPE OF WRITING HAS EVER BEEN FOUND IN THE AMERICAS. (emph. GERMIT”s)
I’m a little confused how ‘chiastic structures’ have revelance to these figures that don’t seem to be any actual language at all. Somebody help me here.
while I’m at it: what about WRITING ON METAL, ESPECIALLY UPON GOLD IN THE NEW WORLD???? Your references to the ancient Near East are interesting, but do you have anything a few thousand miles closer to the BofM place of origin (and I won’t be picky, ANY of the Americas will do this time, thanks)
FoF: Hope we haven’t thrown every other part of your life out of whack on this thread, GERmIT
Jeffrey said: “But even if you could, who would that make any difference to?” I think you forgot for a second that this isn’t a website where people are tyring to find the truth… they’re trying to destroy the truth. So i’m not trying to prove anything, I’m simply trying to defend what I believe is true. You all seem to be the ones trying to convince people.
“My point is if thats, as you say “..what we find to be the most important piece to knowing that the BofM is true..” the best thing you got, it will be hugely ineffective.” I disagree. I think a testimony born by the Holy SPirit is the MOST effective, which is contrary to what you are saying. I think physical and scientific proof is less effective… unless you’re like the pharisees.
Germit- I agree with your comments of faith. My problem is discounting the most valid point, and asking people to still prove it. I don’t believe it because I know all of the historical, scientific, and archeological tid-bits. I believe it because of spiritual reasons. That’s like finding someone who saw OJ simpson at the crime scene, and saying… you can’t use that… only the gloves. I’ll hang in there, Germit… thanks for the concern.
Rick B- “Since you seem to think I am wrong, then tell me in your own words, What teaching(s) are found in the BoM, that are not found in the Bible that will help me draw closer to God, and help in my salvation.” A response to your question will require it’s own post. I’ll do that once I land. But one point is that it’s not ONLY what’s in the BofM that brings you closer, but it’s also the implications of what is taught, the truthfulness of the teachings, etc. But like I said, I’ll put together a full post on your question.
Germit…once again good looking out…i’ll send you some curelom chaps for Christmas for those tapir rides in the country 🙂
Reggie…I can’t stress enough that it was the First Vision that put US (historic Orthodox Christians) on the defensive. Mr. Smith gave us a black eye (apostasy). In essence we are both defending what we believe to be true. We simply disagree on the need for a “restoration.” There were many other groups claiming that by the way so JS was by no means unique. (7th day Adventism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Millerites in general, Campbellites, etc. all around that time period)
So…yes we are going to look VERY critically at this “new” revelation…especially with Galatians 1:8 in mind…blessings!!
Falcon,
I am very pleased with your expansion of the theme of pride in Mormonism. That truly is a “God Thing”! I think you are on to something!
FOF,
In reference to the Isaiah verses, you said, “What of the other examples in Isaiah? I can provide several.”
Quite frankly, I don’t have the time (or energy) to debunk every one of your claims; it would simply take too long.
You condemn your own evidence when you bring up the Charles Anthon transcript. Anthon’s account/testimony was “the paper contained any thing else but “Egyptian Hieroglyphics” ((1834-02-17) “Anton to E. D. Howe”, Mormonism Unvailed. Painesville, Ohio: Telegraph Press, 1834.)
I do, however, respect your effort. At least you are putting thought in to the defense of your faith. Are you are a FAIRblog admin?
Except for the movie thing. Your comment there is WAY out in left field. The rest of your arguments are better than that. That one just stunk.
Reggie,
What on earth are you trying to say to me in your comment. Your babbling doesn’t make any sense. I agree with LDSSTITANIC that this site is not trying to destroy Truth, but to preserve it. There was no need for restoration; the Gospel was perfect (and remains that way) in spite of your prophet’s heresy.
Part 1
Reggie said: “I think you forgot for a second that this isn’t a website where people are tyring to find the truth… they’re trying to destroy the truth. So i’m not trying to prove anything, I’m simply trying to defend what I believe is true. You all seem to be the ones trying to convince people.”
I think you forget that it is indeed for lurkers to find the truth. My wife was one of them. I didn’t even know she was checking this website out. When she had the Mormon goggles on, she thought it was a bunch of people hating on her religion, but she admits that it wasn’t anything like she thought. That people were actually citing LDS authoritative sources. The church’s own doctrine and implication of such doctrine is what led her away, not some “faith-destroying bigots” as you paint us to be. It is a matter of perspective, and your perspective is that we are haters trying to destroy “truth”.
You are trying to prove things. By saying “what I believe is true” is trying to prove to me that the LDS church is true and that what I believe is false, or “not the whole truth.” By bringing up evidence your trying to give credence to Mormonism.
Reg said “I disagree. I think a testimony born by the Holy SPirit is the MOST effective, which is contrary to what you are saying. I think physical and scientific proof is less effective… unless you’re like the pharisees.”
I don’t think you understand what I meant, I should have been more clear. Bringing up your testimony won’t be effective for your argument on the truth of the Book of Mormon – and this is important – for anyone here except YOU and others who sing “praise to the man”.
I don’t doubt its effect it has on you. Heh, it’s fairly obvious the effect a LDS’s testimony has – the the point of suspending all God given logic and rationale.
part 2 coming up..
Part 2
Bottom line – we evangelicals know we will never hear you, the FoF’s, the Reggie’s, and the GB’s of the world denounce their faith and come to Christ publicly on this blog and admit we somehow convinced you of the falsehood of your Church. It is for the lurkers that we do this, it is for my
wife and the future of our children that we do this. Most importantly, it is for the defense of the true gospel of Christ and Christianity that we contend for the faith. For the people that already haven’t made their final decision on joining/staying in the Mormon Church. You are a die-hard buddy, it will take God to change your mind.
Joseph Smith supposedly had access to something no translator of a dead language has ever had: a living, breathing, bilingual speaker of that language. So why didn’t he do with that resource what any rational person would do?
1. Moroni wasn’t that bright. So the clueless lunk never clarified any of the numerous translation problems (“Um, Joe, about those horses . . . “), or drew a map, or dictated a simple “Reformed Egyptian” dictionary.
2. Like the old Roman gods, Moroni really did know what was what, but was just messing with him. A bunch of practical jokers up in heaven, don’t you know. That rock-in-the-hat business must have had them ROFL!
3. These questions never occurred to Joseph Smith because he made it all up, and a character in a made-up story can’t ask questions that didn’t occur to the author.
I’m going with the last one. And, frankly, the Mormon church should too. Call it an “inspired fable” or something. I doubt most Mormons would blink an eye. If Star Wars fans can be rapturously inspired by a bunch of stuff George Lucas made up, what’s the problem?
Reggie,
It seems that you feel personally attacked. I find it interesting for you to say, “This shows an obvious interest in “disproving” the BofM. It also shows the extreme amounts of time that [****] have spent finding coniving ways to twist and turn what the BofM says..”
I find it intersting because you accuse Christians of what Mormons do with regard to the Bible. We find it amazing how much time and effort Mormons put into disproving the Bible to show that the BOM is more accurate, better, whatever adjective you choose to fill in the blank. I can’t help but wonder what a tremendous witness for Jesus Christ you would be if you could just see how your arguments tear apart the Christian faith (again, another accusation by Mormons that Christians want to destroy someone’s sacred beliefs). You might have had a vision of some personage, but that has to be tested against the Bible, because if that personage is leading you away from God’s word to the words of JS and all the heresies that naturally follow, I would have to question the experience and the nature of it. I know, I’ll get jumped on for speaking plainly, but beating around the bush won’t save anyone. The BOM does not stand the scrutiny of the Bible, reggie. Once again, Mormonism is revealed as being backwards because Mormons think the Bible should be tested against the BOM.
Grace and Peace! (and I really mean it)
Non-spiritual evidence for the Book of Mormon are many. Most here ignore them or use some flimsy excuse to reject them.
One such evidence is the place where Ishmael was buried, the place called Nahom. This place is found in the exact location described in the BoM.
Also there is a small area on the south east coast of the Arabian peninsula that perfectly matches the description given in the BoM. This place was called Bountiful by Lehi’s party.
The BoM describes it as having “much fruit and also wild honey;”, “by the seashore” with mountains near by. Also it has lots of trees (to build a ship and make fire).
Certainly NOT something you would expect to find on the Arabian peninsula.
For those interested in seeing video clips describing these evidences, you can find them here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw7fW19Sk1A&feature=related
Here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjDAu8PZRco
And here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mihAVO1R-GA
Off course we could get into the linguistic evidences, the Hebraisms, the Chiasmistic poetry. The linguistic similarities between Hebrew, Eygptian and several native languages of central America.
But alas, it is like casting pearls!
Let the rending begin (or more accurately) Let the rending continue.
All in “love” of course.
Cheers!
Have a busy few weeks at work and a week of holidays and you miss a hell of a lot.
LDSTITANIC – There are names that can be translated from one language to another and then there are names that cannot. For example, I served my mission in Finland, they use the name Pietari in the Bible for Peter as that is their equivalent. but when it comes to Simon, they use the same as English as they do not have an equivalent. So Zarahemla could be a name that does not have an English equivalent (as well as the other names you mentioned) while Bountiful did have an English equivalent.
Another thing about names of cities is that they can be descriptive, not just names. Look at Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Yes it’s a made up city, but what is the meaning of the name? ‘Ham’ is a small village, ‘let’ means small. So if we did find a village called Hamlet in say Denmark, can we translate it as small, small village? What about Leningrad? It means City of Lenin, why didn’t the map makers translate this as such? Stalingrad is another? Finland means land of a thousand lakes in Swedish – this Finnish word for their country is ‘Suomi’ meaning a collection of swamps. So a name for a city or country may have a meaning behind it which is a description more than a single word. Maybe Zarahemla is that, when translated into English it could be a descriptive sentence so its better to use the one word. Whereas Bountiful was a one word description and thus easier to translate into English.
As far as the Hill Cumorrah, it says in the BoM that the Nephites were driven before the Lamanites during the final war so there is a possibility that the whole fight was spread out from one area to another. For example, from MesoAmerica to NY. Also, Moroni explained that he was wandering in the wilderness trying to hide from the Lamanites after the decimation of his people. In doing this he could have ended up travelling from MesoAmerica to NY to hide the plates where they were found.
As for evidences, there is a book “Discovering Lehi” written by Lynn and Hope Hilton (I have met Lynn and his second wife). They travelled from Jerusalem down through the Arabian peninsula and found that the trip described in the BoM was in fact very accurate in detail for that area. This includes the area in which they ended the trip and built the boat. It’s described as a well forested area and the trees were large enough to build a boat. Many critics in the past have scoffed at this in the BoM, and there was nothing in the ideology in JS times that I can find which suggest that anyone thought of an area like this existed on the Saudi peninsula.
Some of the details mentioned were – a river a couple of days journey down from the beginning of the Red Sea. Many have ridiculed this part, but if someone has made that trip and said that there is a river there then its there whether the ridiculer likes it or not.
The burial city of Nahum was along the trail. These days its written Nehem or something like that, but the Hebrew was NHM. In the BoM, this is also described as a burial city. Yes JS could have looked at a map and possibly found NHM on it (I don’t know if it was written on the maps in those days) but for him to describe it as a burial city just by looking at a map and getting it right? Well…what can I say? I know most of you would say coincidence, but that’s your opinion.
There are many other things in this book that describe the route from Jerusalem to the Yemen Republic which all coincide with the description of the journey in the BoM. Many people, including JS, in his days had no real idea what that area of the world was like.
So from my perspective, this does add to the archaeological/scientific/geographic evidences of the BoM and its truthfulness.
Okay, but how does a Mormon explain the fact that the 1830’s BoM SUPPORTS the trinity?? Numerous areas (I can quote specific areas, if needed) say that Jesus is God, then it was later changed to “the son of God.” Can anyone explain that?
I think that for a work to be considered the word of God it needs to be unchanging. Because, God doesn’t change, He’s the same yesterday, today and forever. How can his message to the prophets change? And please, don’t excuse it as “continuing revelation” because I’m entirely too sick of that term. That seems to be the Mormon excuse for why old Joe’s prophesies didn’t come true.
By the way, did you know there’s a quote from him that says, and I’m paraphrasing here: “There are Quaker-like people who live on the moon and will live for 1000 years.”
What????? I don’t understand how anyone can follow anyone who was so obviously insane. I’ll always hold to the belief that Joseph did in fact see visions…but only because he was on peyote at the time.
By the way, I’m new around here, so hi everyone!!
drmarcus is the only only to stab at stuff I have presented (2 brief stabs). Then he says he hasn’t the time to follow it through. Are ya’ll willing to let my other points stand?
re Anthon transcript- went to the Tanner site LDSSTITANIC, and, well, how in the world did that information hurt my argument? It basically said it was what he said vs. what he said- big surprise. My point is that the transcript contains a very clear chiasm- how do you explain that? Could it be that it was what Joseph claimed- a short transcript from an ancient record?
Another thing on Ferguson- spoke to my dad today about him. Turns out my dad had a conversation with him back in the day- after the supposed revelation of his “loss of faith.” When my dad asked about his view on the BOM and BOA, Ferguson replied he believed they were true.
Linguist Brian Stubbs has identified more than 1000 Hebrew and/or Arabic forms in tongues of the ancient Mesoamerican cultures.
Mary Foster, of U of California, another linguist, states that the languages of southern Mexico and Central America are descended from ancient Egypt (Mary L. Foster, Old World Language in the Americas: 2 Language Origins Society, Cambridge University, England, September 1992), 2
Professor William Shipley, respected linguist from UC Berkely, suggested there was an “historical relationship or other meaningful tie between the Olmec language of Southern Mexico and Hebrew.”
Nephi said Reformed Egyptian “consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians” 1 Ne 1:2.- interesting!
GERMIT: Why don’t we have samples that match the Anthon transcript? Mayanist Linda Schele suggests, “There may, in fact, have been many writing systems that for one reason or another, did not survive.” Look at our own language 1000 years ago- a lot different than today. Imagine mixing in many different languages from different cultures along with rather sudden periods of destruction among those peoples.
I’m thinking that the best strategy for Mormons regarding the evidence of the BoM is to say that God made all of the evidence disappear. Then Mormons could say that in order to believe the BoM and the Mormon program, a person has to have a confirming feeling from God. God, therefore, is testing people for faith, looking for those who have a sincere and humble heart. It’s perfect. It’s a little like the hocus pocus with what counts as a prophetic utterance and what doesn’t in Mormondom. Let’s face it, the whole deal is predicated on the individual Mormons testimony anyway. That way they can keep the personal head trip going…..in the real world known as spiritual pride. They’ve got the special god feeling only they get, plus the man gets to be a god himself. What a deal!
“But you said in your heart, I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High. Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, to the recesses of the pit.”
On second thought, maybe this becoming a god really isn’t such a good deal afterall. The living God has been mocked. He is not amused.
Alma 36:
/A/ My son, give ear to my words
/B/ for I swear unto you, that inasmuch as ye shall keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land.
/C/ I would that ye should do as I have done
/D/ in remembering the captivity of our fathers; for they were in bondage
/E/ and none could deliver them except it was the God of Abraham, and…of Isaac, and…of Jacob; and He surely did deliver them in their afflictions.
/F1/ And now, O my son Helaman, […] hear my words and learn of me; for I do know that whosoever shall put their trust in God shall be supported in their trials, and their troubles, and their afflictions
/F2/ and shall be lifted up at the last day.
/G/ And I would not that ye think that I know of myself—not of the temporal but of the spiritual, not of the carnal mind but of God.
/H/ Now…I say unto you, if I had not been born of God I should not have known these things; But God has, by the mouth of his holy angel, made these things known unto me, not of any worthiness of myself; for I went about with the sons of Mosiah, seeking to destroy the church of God; but behold, God sent his holy angel to stop us by the way. And…he spake unto us, as it were the voice of thunder, […] and we all fell to the earth, for the fear of the Lord came upon us. But behold, the voice said unto me: Arise. And I arose and stood up, and beheld the angel. And he said unto me: If thou wilt of thyself be destroyed, seek no more to destroy the church of God.
/I1/ And it came to pass that I fell to the earth; and it was for the space of three days and three nights that I could not open my mouth, neither had I the use of my limbs.
/I2/ And the angel spake more things unto me, which were heard by my brethren, but I did not hear them; for when I heard the words—If thou wilt be destroyed of thyself, seek no more to destroy the church of God—I was struck with such great fear and amazement lest perhaps I should be destroyed, that I fell to the earth and I did hear no more.
/J1/ But I was racked with eternal torment, for my soul was harrowed up to the greatest degree and racked with all my sins. Yea, I did remember all my sins and iniquities, for which I was tormented with the pains of hell; yea, I saw that I had rebelled against my God […] Yea, and I had murdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction
/J2/ Yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror. Oh, thought I, that I could be banished and become extinct both soul and body, that I might not be brought to stand in the presence of my God, to be judged of my deeds.
/K1/ And now, for three days and for three nights was I racked, even with the pains of a damned soul. And it came to pass that as I was thus racked with torment,
/K2/ while I was harrowed up by the memory of my many sins,
/L/ behold, I remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God
/M/ to atone for the sins of the world.
/L/ Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God,
/K1/ have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death.
/K2/ And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more.
/J1/ And oh, what joy, and what marvelous light I did behold; yea, my soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain! Yea, I say unto you, my son, that there could be nothing so exquisite and so bitter as were my pains. Yea, and again […] on the other hand, there can be nothing so exquisite and sweet as was my joy.
/J2/ Yea, methought I saw, even as our father Lehi saw, God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels, in the attitude of singing and praising their God; yea, and my soul did long to be there.
/I1/ But behold, my limbs did receive their strength again, and I stood upon my feet, and did manifest unto the people that I had been born of God.
/I2/ Yea, and from that time even until now I have labored without ceasing, that I might bring souls unto repentance that I might bring them to taste of the exceeding joy of which I did taste; that they might also be born of God, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. …O my son, the Lord doth give me exceedingly great joy in the fruit of my labors;
/H/ For because of the word which he has imparted unto me, behold, many have been born of God and have tasted as I have tasted, and have seen eye to eye as I have seen;
/G/ therefore they do know of these things of which I have spoken, as I do know; and the knowledge which I have is of God.
/F1/ And I have been supported under trials and troubles of every kind, yea, and in all manner of afflictions; yea, God has delivered me from prison, and from bonds, and from death…and I do put my trust in him, and he will still deliver me.
/F2/ And I know that he will raise me up at the last day, to dwell with him in glory…and I will praise him forever
/E/ for he has brought our fathers out of Egypt, and…swallowed up the Egyptians in the Red Sea; and he led them by his power into the promised land; yea, and he has delivered them out of bondage…from time to time. Yea, and he has also brought our fathers out of…Jerusalem; and he has also, by his everlasting power, delivered them out of bondage […]
/D/ and I have always retained in remembrance their captivity; yea, and ye also ought to retain in remembrance, as I have done, their captivity.
/C/ But behold, my son, this is not all; for ye ought to know as I do know
/B/ that inasmuch as ye shall keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land; and ye ought to know also, that inasmuch as ye will not keep the commandments of God ye shall be cut off from his presence.
/A/ Now this is according to His word.
Ralph: your theory on the size and scope of the battle is interesting, but raises its own problems: that would have to been the mother of all battles; I can imagine a WAR stretched out over a continent, a la WW II, but a single battle over that kind of terrain ?? Wouldn’t that kind of struggle leave some kind of trace in the earth or with the surrounding people ?? FoF, I’m wondering the same about the ‘Anthon-like’ languages, OK, they died out, but without a trace anywhere ?? No residual evidence of a language spoken and written by many thousands (I’d hate to be the one to put a number on this….) ?? This seems unlikely, this was no backward, reclusive culture. I appreciate the info given by Shipley,
Foster, and Stubbs. I look forward to looking into that. The whole CHIASMUS argument is new to me, I’m not going to say one way or another on it till I get a better idea of what’s involved. That’s not a dodge, I’m hoping someone here at MC can interact with you, soon, on that line.
As for Ferguson’s quote: “many are the external evidences that support it (BofM)”…. what ‘evidences’ could he be talking about if he didn’t find them on his ‘digs’ ?? Did he ever spell that out ?? His comment is the theme of this thread, but it’s just a statement (for now) hanging in the air, like Mosser and Owens comment. Anyway, I’m not refuting his words, they just seem puzzling to me.
More tomorrow, look forward to seeing more of the iceburgs (hear that TITANIC ???)
FoF–
Much of what you talk about I personally do not know much about. But somewhere you mentioned that the style is in existence in other places (few, but they exist). I couldn’t help but notice that point because if it exists elsewhere, the connection cannot be conclusive, and absolutely leaves the door open that it is still false. The talk of language in and of itself may be interesting, but hardly proves your point.
Reggie, huh? (and please stop with the name calling– ie michael phelps and others I have seen.)
And to everyone, I still have not seen anyone discuss the quotes of the past leaders (except FoF’s allusion to the movies) that the hill of Cumorah was the same hill that Joseph got the plates from.
Did I miss something (if so, please point me in the right direction)? But if not, does anyone else find this telling?
Oh, please, I wish I could get into this one, but time is short.
I’ve just written a letter to the Neal Maxwell Institute (FARMS) asking the question “is there any physical evidence for ancient synagogues in teh New World outside BOM”?
About 25 years ago I was on the dig site at Gamla in the Golan Heights (it had been destroyed by the Romans in AD68 in their march to Jerusalem). At the time we were looking for a synagogue and I was interested to see the FARMS website quoting Gamla as one of the precedents for early synagogues being built at the city gates. This, they argue, means that synagogues might have been built much earlier than currently accepted, certainly early enough for Nephi to export the idea to the new world in the 6th century BC. What was notable on the article posted by FARMS was an apparent complete lack of physical evidence that these structures ever existed in North America.
Maybe the archaeologists found their synagogue in Gamla, though when I was there, they were looking in the centre of town, not at the walls, where I was digging.
I have yet to receive a reply from the Institute. I suspect that the answer will be “no evidence has been found”.
Without trying to trick or trap anyone, I’d like to know how LDS can deal with this without hiding a sense of vulnerability or, even, embarassment.
I’m looking forward to hearing from any LDS who has dirt under his or her fingernails.
FoF-
Ferguson appears to be kind of an enigma. He was a closet doubter and loved the positive, social aspects of the Mormon church. A photo copy of a letter he wrote to a friend, James D. Still, is in the book by Larson. In the letter he states that he lost faith in Joseph Smith, but that he enjoyed his friendships in the Mormon church and felt it was “the best fraternity” around and was “too good to try to shoot it down.” This letter was written on December 3, 1979. When did your dad speak with him?
It may be hard to ever figure out for sure what he thought after his loss of faith and whether or not it was renewed since there is a conspicuous absence of written publications in the last 15 years of his life. This is in stark contrast to the numerous publications in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. Larson says if it wasn’t for his letters and conversations his beliefs during the last years of his life would remain unknown (Stan Larson, Quest for the Gold Plates, pp. 135, 155)
drmarcus- I take back the concession I made regarding Isaiah 2:16! A little more research saves the day! I overestimated your argument- it was more simple than I gave you credit for.
Greek version of Isaiah 2:16 includes the phrase “and upon every ship of the sea.”
Hebrew version of Isaiah 2:16 includes the phrase “And upon all the ships of Tarshish.”
2 Ne 12:16 includes both: “And upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish”
My point is that the BOM likely is quoting the more accurate/older original wording on the brass plates, while both the Greek and Hebrew incompletely quote the original. Make sense. Got another explanation? Joseph didn’t know either of these languages when he translated the BOM.
Look up the Greek and Hebrew Old Testaments online.
Michael P- the chiasmus I spoke of before has been found in other writings outside of ancient Hebrew and Greek, but to claim a young, uneducated man in 1830 could produce a 530 page text filled with these structures is an ENORMOUS leap- they were nowhere described in American publications before 1830. Mantus tried to demonstrate one example, but it is very difficult to show it in the format of this blog. This poetic structure very strongly argues that the BOM is an ancient text, with a big Hebrew influence.
One form of that Hebrew influence is in the multitude of Hebrew idioms in the BOM. An idiom is an expression whose meaning is not predictable from the usual meanings of its constituent elements, as kick the bucket or hang one’s head, or from the general grammatical rules of a language. Many Hebrew idioms are used repeatedly throughout the BOM. Examples include “by the hand of,” “by the mouth of,” or “reign in his stead.” There are many more. Of course you will say that JS simply used the language of the Bible. It is not that simple. The context of these phrases and their usage is perfectly consistent with that in Hebrew texts.
You really don’t have to get too deep into this subject without realizing that if there was anything to the BoM claims of ancient peoples and civilizations in North/South America, it would be common knowledge and taught by anthropologits et.al as such. “There’s no there there” is a saying that applies well to this situation. It’s both painful and embarrassing to watch our Mormon posters try to come up with something, anything that would support the history and science of the BoM. It there were ever a group of people totally taken over by a spirit of deception, it’s Mormons. But, as I’ve said before, the personal testimony fueled by emotion blocks any kind of rational thought on the subject. I’ve reached the point of having a condesending attitude and just want to placate our Mormon friends. Like, “OK honey, yes I know there is a monster under your bed, and daddy will give you this special blankey that will keep you safe. All better. Good. Now go nigh nigh.” Forgive me, but that’s the best way I can describe what I think and feel when I’ve reached the point of giving up on these folks and living them in their sin.
This is really a sad deal. It’s like watching someone drive over a cliff and not being able to stop them.
FoF –
You ask in regards to the Isaiah 2:16 controversy: “Got another explanation? Joseph didn’t know either of these languages when he translated the BOM.”
Yes, actually, there is another explanation that absolutely demolishes this argument. “Tarsish” is the original Hebrew rendering (no “sea” in the passage). This is true of both the Masoretic Text and Dead Sea Scrolls. It was in the Hebrew Targum, however, that Tarshish was often interpreted for clarity. Isaiah 2:16 thus renders “Tarshish” as sea, and this is also used in the Septuagint version (kai epi pasan thean ploion). The Targum also renders Tarshish as sea in other places (Jonah 1:3, Jonah 4:2, Ezek. 27:12, Daniel 10:6). These are an obvious interpretation of the original (JS doesn’t try to change these other versions based on suppose missing text either).
In addition, having the extra phrase actually destroys the poetic structure that Isaiah is using. Things flow beautifully in the original Hebrew with only “Tarshish”, but get horribly mangled when you throw in the “ships of the sea” in there.
Furthermore, we know that this variant was known during the time of Joseph Smith. John Wesley notes this in his Explanatory Notes Upon the Old Testament about 70 years earlier, and it is reproduced in Matthew Poole’s “Annotations Upon the Holy Bible”. Septuagint translations of the OT also exist during Joseph Smith’s time. Putting these together, the Tarshish/sea variant is well known during Smith’s time, and it isn’t hard to see how Smith could find out about it. Not knowing Hebrew, he doesn’t realize that adding this passage destroyed the poetic structure — he only knows that two variants are out there and creates an awkward marriage between them.
(See David P. Wright’s essay “Isaiah in the Book of Mormon…and Joseph Smith in Isaiah” for more info on this issue)
Continued below . . .
. . . Continued from my last
We can also evaluate Smith’s inspiration based on the rest of the KJV text found in the Book of Mormon. In Isaiah 2:16, Smith awkwardly marries “ships of Tarshish” and “ships of sea” where it is not appropriate to do so. Even if it were correct, however, it represents theological minutae: nobody is going to lose their salvation based on not knowing about the other phrase. It really is fluff.
However, throughout the BoM, Smith copies many of the errors from the KJV without correcting them, and several of them ARE important. I’ll just give two from the Lord’s prayer for thought:
3 Nephi 13:12-13: The BoM version of the Lord’s prayer states “Deliver us from evil” and includes the Doxology (“For thine is the kingdom . . .”). Both of these are translation errors and do not represent the actual words of Jesus. It should read deliver us from the evil one (tou ponirou in the genitive denotes that the adjective functions substantivally, and this makes more sense theologically). The Doxology is a late edition not found in the earliest editions of the Gospel of Matthew (Luke never uses it).
Mormons often like to argue that Smith just left it this way so that it would be familiar to his readers, but this doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. He does remove “Give us this day our daily bread” and removes the reference to “thy kingdom come”. Smith decided he could improve on the KJV – he just can’t do it correctly.
Putting all of this together, I have to choose between two possibilities: Either Joseph Smith is a true prophet restoring ancient text, or a charlatan/fraud who knew about some Bible controversies and used them to make his rendering look special. Given the colossal mess up with Isaiah 2:16, the other significant translation errors of the KJV that remain uncorrected by Smith, and the absolute vacuum of evidence for the other modifications, I know which one I have to choose. 🙂
I am also noticing the repeated appeal to Chiasmus by the Mormon posters here. This always made me feel special when I was Mormon but, alas, there just isn’t much here.
First off, Chiasmus appears in the Bible too. Smith knows the Bible, Smith tries to copy the Bible. Obviously, his text is going to have some parallels with Biblical language and phrase structure — he is setting out to do this very thing!
With Chiasmus, though, we find this in enough places that it really isn’t all that special to create. It appears in Green Eggs & Ham, for example (I am Sam, Sam I am, among others).
However, perhaps the biggest dent to the Chiasmus case by the LDS comes from one of your competitors for the title of One True Mormon Church, James Strang, who lead a splinter group after the death of Joseph Smith to Wisconsin. Here, he discovered his own metal plates, translated them, had witnesses attest to them and, guess what, he has Chiasmus all throughout his book. The book is called the “Book of the Law of the Lord” and you can Google this to read it as well as see the Chiasmus (which the Strangites are touting as proof that they are the true successors of Joseph Smith). If you are going to say that Chiasmus in something claiming to be Hebrew scripture denotes its truthfulness, you are most certainly in the wrong branch of Mormonism.
Ed,
Why did you have to bring all of this reality into the discussion? And all that scholarship. This is really low Ed! I think we have reached the point in this discussion where one of our Mormon friends says, “I know that JS is a prophet, I know the BoM is true…….and under it all is an air of desperation like someone flailing about drowning looking for anyone, anyone to throw them a life preserver. I really like your rational presentation, but again, I’m back to that concept that rational thought cannot overcome emotion. Our Mormon friends want this to be true and so therefore it is. It’s the old “create your own reality” scenario. Mormonism is a spiritual as well as a psychological trap. The game is called “rescuing your equity”. Mormons have way too much invested in this flim flam program. The emotional rewards are too significant to give up…….unless they’re interested in gaining their souls.
[One of the rules for this thread, which Latter-day Saints have graciously been willing and careful to conform to, is that the discussion is to revolve around evidences for the Book of Mormon outside of testimony. Since that aspect of BOM evidence is off-limits for them, it is also off-limits for non-Mormons. Please do not provoke our Mormon friends on a topic they have been asked to leave at the door.]
faithoffathers:
Another note to expand on Ed’s view on Chiastic Poetry. Benjamin Franklin often used this literary form in his “Poor Richard’s Almanack.” If I remember correctly Franklin lived a bit prior to Smith, and His almanacks were published from 1733-1758.
Furthermore if one is immersed in the Old Testament it is rather simple to recreate a Chiastic verse or series, I’m wondering if one looked hard enough if one could find one in the comments of some of our posters. My bet is we could and not just mantis mutu’s post from yesterday.
Lautensack
P.S. Happy Reformation Day! Viva La Luther!
Jack- I thinnk you’re confused about us and the Bible. Nobody is trying to disprove the Bible, as you said in your post. The Bible is the word of God, and we fully believe that. BUT (huge BUT), all of the various interpretations of the Bible aren’t the word of God. You believe one thing from the BIble, while a JW reads the same scripture and believes another thing, and a Baptist, and a Catholic, and a Mormon, and a Lutheran, and a Assembly of God, and a 7th day Adv., and a presby., and an orthodox, and a methodist, and member of all of their branches, and we all read “the same” Bible, yet have such extremely large fundamental beliefs.
LDSTIT- Thanks for your comments. [Accusatory comment trimmed. -Mod]
Michael P (did I spell that right?)- Are your feelings hurt? If so, I deeply apologize! This website doesn’t have much of a up-beat feeling to it, so the “Phelps” thing is to have fun… Plus, take it as a compliment… the guy is amazing! (and a christian). [Comment trimmed due to probability of hijacking the thread. -Mod]
Lautensack: “Furthermore if one is immersed in the Old Testament it is rather simple to recreate a Chiastic verse or series.”
Response: If this were the case, then we should find a continued tradition of chiasmus in post-biblical literature. John Breck’s (The Shape of Biblical Language) attempt to demonstrate this a number of years ago only accomplished to underscore just how thoroughly the style died once Classical Hellenistic literary practice overtook both the Christians and the Jews.
I say “Classical Hellenistic” because the chiastic ordering of lexical items was a known literary practice in early Greek literature (hence, the original scholastic term, “chiasmus,” which is Greek, not Hebrew). However, the more complex, often contrastive and playful ordering of lexical items, ideas, and actions into inverted (chiastic) structures is something we find in both the Old and New Testaments, and in the Book of Mormon. And the Alma 36 example I presented above is about as good as it gets in any of those texts.
But if biblical chiastic structure is really all that intuitive as you naively suggest, Laut, why was scholarship totally oblivious to its presence until the last couple centuries. In Joseph Smith’s time it was totally unknown to the English speaking world, and only very rudely appreciated in continental Europe.
The quality chiastic structures we find in the Book of Mormon rival the best we know from the Bible. Yet these biblical ones weren’t known to anyone till the 20th century.
Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble. The so-called chiasmus of James Strange (nice try Ed) is much more of a force and farce than Breck’s attempt to find “chiasmus” in post-biblical Christian literature. Just because one rubs their eyes really hard doesn’t make the green spots they consequently appear to see on the wall really there.
The complex and quite artistic chiastic structure I noted above from Alma 36 is not simply spots in one’s eyes. It’s the plain writing on the wall.
mutu.
To All: this is a long quote, I hope I’m not trampling any parameter here, but letting Mr.Ferguson speak for himself. I’m still reading up on him, but I think a fair statement about him would be he was “conflicted” in the last decade or more of his life: tugged in different directions by the lack of evidence on one hand, and family/social/religious allegiances on the other. I welcome feedback. GERMIT
(this is from Utah Lighthouse Min. by theway)
In 1975 Thomas Stuart Ferguson finally mustered up his courage and prepared a 29-page paper in response to papers written by Mormon apologists John Sorenson and Garth Norman. It was entitled, Written Symposium on Book-of-Mormon Geography: Response of Thomas S. Ferguson to the Norman & Sorenson Papers. In this response, p. 4, Mr. Ferguson wrote: ‘With all of these great efforts, it cannot be established factually that anyone, from Joseph Smith to the present day, has put his finger on a single point of terrain that was a Book-of-Mormon geographical place. And the hemisphere has been pretty well checked out by competent people. Thousands of sites have been excavated.” Ferguson pointed out in his paper that the text of the Book of Mormon makes it very clear that certain items should be found in archaeological excavations and that these items are not present in the sites proposed. He noted, for instance, that “Thousands of archaeological holes in the area proposed have given us not a fragment of evidence of the presence of the plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon…” (p. 7) On page 29 he concluded by saying: “I’m afraid that up to this point, I must agree with Dee Green, who has told us that to date there is no Book-of-Mormon geography. I, for one, would be happy if Dee were wrong.”
mutu –
Sorry, but Strang’s chiasmus is just as valid as Smith’s and doesn’t go away just because you don’t want to see it. Here are some of the passages for all to read (see, I can copy and paste chiasmus too):
A YE SHALL not CLOTHE YOURSELVES
B AFTER THE MANNER of the follies of other men;
B’ but AFTER THE MANNER that is seemly and convenient,
A’ SHALL YE CLOTHE YOURSELVES.
Another:
A Thou shalt not TAKE the NAME of the Lord thy God in VAIN:
B thou shalt not USURP dominion
C as a RULER; for the NAME of the Lord thy God
D is great and glorious ABOVE ALL OTHER NAMES:
E he is ABOVE ALL,
F and is the ONLY TRUE God;
F’ the ONLY JUST and upright King
E’ OVER ALL:
D’ he ALONE hath the RIGHT
C’ to RULE; and in his NAME, only he to whom he granteth it:
B’ whosoever is not chosen of him, the same is a USURPER, and unholy:
A’ the Lord will not hold him guiltless, for he TAKETH his NAME in VAIN.
And another:
A My people ARE NO MORE.
B THE MIGHTY ARE FALLEN, and the young slain in battle.
C Their BONES bleached on the plain by the noonday SHADOW.
D The houses are leveled to the dust, and IN THE MOAT are the walls. They shall be inhabited.
D’ I have IN THE BURIAL served them,
C’ and their BONES in the Death-SHADE, towards the sun’s rising, are covered.
B’ They sleep with THE MIGHTY dead, and they rest with their fathers. They have FALLEN in transgression
A’ AND ARE NOT, but the elect and faithful there shall dwell.
Oooh, oooh, here are some more:
This one is a comment that some LDS person made regarding the PBS documentary “The Mormons”. The Chiasmus was caught by poster “Baura” on exmormon dot org:
(A) As an active member of the **LDS CHURCH,** I was disappointed in **THE DOCUMENTARY,** “The Mormons” that aired on PBS.
(B) I felt it was way **TOO NEGATIVE** and relied on too many interviews from former members whose views were definitely tainted, and possibly inaccurate.
(C) The interviews **REPRESENTED** ONE person’s experience and did not accurately represent the whole church.
(C’) I don’t feel that it **REPRESENTED** the church well at all.
(B’) It was not balanced and dwelt on **TOO many NEGATIVE** issues, when there is so much good.
(A’) People who don’t know anything about **OUR FAITH** who watched **THIS SHOW** will definitely come away with a narrow, negative view. — What a shame! Shawna, California
Here is another one by John Taylor (courtesy again of Baura):
“And as He in His own person bore the sins of all, and atoned for them by the sacrifice of Himself, so there came upon Him the weight and agony of ages and generations, the indescribable agony consequent upon this great sacrificial atonement wherein He bore the sins of the world, and suffered in His own person the consequences of an eternal law of God broken by man.” -John Taylor, Mediation and Atonement, p. 150
Breaking it down:
(A) And as He IN HIS OWN PERSON
(B) BORE THE SINS OF ALL,
(C) and ATONED for them
(D) by the SACRIFICE of Himself,
(E) so there came upon Him the weight and AGONY
(F) of AGES
(F’) and GENERATIONS,
(E’) the indescribable AGONY consequent upon this great
(D’) SACRIFICIAL
(C’) ATONEMENT wherein He
(B’) BORE THE SINS OF THE WORLD, and
(A’) suffered IN HIS OWN PERSON the consequences of an eternal law of God broken by man.
Since anyone can do this, it hardly makes your precious Book of Mormon special. Especially given everything else against it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^ Still waiting for “archaeological evidence”. Possibly a definition of Archaeology will help: The systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence, such as graves, buildings, tools, and pottery. It would be nice if we had a nephite coin, sword, or actual inscription on some metal plates.
Like Martin_, “I’m looking forward to hearing from any LDS who has dirt under his or her fingernails.”
Mandis: Your quotes from the BOM are entertaining. But, I don’t understand what the point is you are trying to make. It is no more valid that quoting Cinderella, or the Book of Zelph.
Speaking of the Book of Zelph… If writing in old english is so difficult, and impossible for the uneducated then how did Jared Anderson do it? He is simply an 18 year old employee at Chuckee Cheese, yet he was able to give a “New Testament to the BOM” that fills in most of the gaps and is quite elequant (excluding the sexual innuendo that I find unneeded.) Here is a link to the Book of Zelph: http://www.bookofzelph.com/
ReggieW: thanks for posting, BUT do you plan on helping FoF and Mantis any time soon?? Please, and I mean that, stop ranting and help your mates out (almost forgot RALPH, he’s in on this also) and FETCH OUT SOME EVIDENCE. This is your chance, I say this matter of factly, to showcase the stuff that Mosser and Owens were talking about, you did use their quote a time or two did you not ??? Well….. show us the goods, please. End of plea.
My take on the chiasmus thing so far: GERMIT has no clue as to who could be ahead or behind in this back and forth because it’s reformed egyptian to me….pardon the pun….but I will remark that this kind of discussion lends itself to a more murky outcome….a little bit of ‘he said-she said’….as opposed to HAVE WE EVER FOUND ANTHON LIKE FIGURES LANGUAGE IN THE NEW WORLD, etc,….HAVE WE EVER FOUND A DEVELOPED PRACTICE ON METAL IN THE NEW WORLD AND WHEN DID IT DEVELOP AND BY WHOM, etc… do you catch my subtlety ??? The language stuff is interesting, but I’m guessing it’s going to be a ‘split decision’ win by judges ruling etc. kind of thing….how about some of the specific archaeological problems ?? Reformed Egyptian ‘residue’ found ANYWHERE in the NEW WORLD? How much and where??
I appreciate the efforts by Mantis and FoF and Ralph: is there an ‘LDS Apologetics Temp Service’ you could call for help??
SHARON: Very intersting thread, you never cease to amaze…… GERMIT
I never knew anything about the Chiasmus, so I’m learning a lot, this is neat.
First thought I honestly had was, that doesn’t seem too hard.
Fair attempt at an argument but in my opinion it is rather weak.
Lyndon Lamborn’s research has made another interested point for the LDS to chew on –
In this quote, Lyndon explains how Joseph Smith made some “copying mistakes” not accounting for the differences between the nephites and the Jews under Roman occuptation.
“When Jesus spoke to the Jews, he taught a very piercing lesson when he said “if any man compel thee to walk with him a mile, walk with him twain” as recorded in the New Testament. This lesson refers to Roman law during the occupation that stated if a Roman soldier asked, the Jew had to carry his pack and walk with him for a mile. The Jewish audience could immediately relate and understand. Jesus said the same thing to the Nephites who were NOT under Roman occupation and would have no idea what lesson was being taught. A similar problem exists with using the phrase “whoever shall say to his brother Raca (a curse and term of hatred), shall be in danger of the council” in 3 Ne 12:22. Committing ‘raca’ in Palestine resulted in being brought before the Jewish Sanhedrin or “council”. As an Aramaic word, ‘raca’ would have no meaning to the Nephites, and the ‘council’ reference would also be meaningless. If “The Book of Mormon” is a literal translation and the most correct of any book, how is this possible?” (http://www.mormonthink.com/lamborn.htm)
more coming really soon –
Here is another internal problem in which Lyndon explains that Nephi explicitly states that the Law of Moses should be followed by his people, but there is no mention of important things that pertain the law.
“When Nephi went back to get the plates from Laban, he explains that they needed the record to help them keep the law of Moses. If there were living “strictly” in accordance with the law of Moses, where in the book are the references to the Passover, the Feast of the Tabernacles, sabbatical years, jubilees, thank offerings, unleavened bread, ephods, usury, purification, circumcision, or unclean animals? And since all of the people were of the tribe of Joseph, where are the Levites who alone had the authority to administer the rites?” (http://www.mormonthink.com/lamborn.htm)
FOF,
Ed beat me to it. The ORIGINAL says, Tarshish. Period. The ORIGINAL was in Hebrew, not Greek. The Greek is a later translation. You should know better than that. [Personal comment snipped.]
Let’s see what the Jews have to say about it:
From the Jewish Publication Society Bible (OT Only)
“Isaiah 2:16 And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all delightful imagery. ”
So, back to the teaching of your prophets that the Hill Cumorah was definitely in New York?? Is it a case that new revelation has been given to you? Oops, that can’t happen, can it?
Ed,
Very, very good points! Much better scholarship and research than my post. I only have time for a cursory investigation. You seem to have developed this very well. It is much appreciated!
It is interesting to me that the one verse, I chose by “random”, is so blatantly misrepresented by FoF. Oh the holes! The holes! The holes, holes, holes, holes!