Discussions of Book of Mormon issues and evidences, plus other topics related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Monday, May 13, 2019

Egyptomania and Ohio: Thoughts on a Lecture from Terryl Givens and a Questionable Statement in the Joseph Smith Papers, Vol. 4

In a lecture I heard from Terryl Givens, one of my favorite LDS writers and thinkers, I was intrigued with his views on Egyptomania and its influence on Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham. His lecture is "Joseph Smith and Translation: Notes Toward a Theoretical Framework," The Mormon Translation Conference, Logan Utah, 16 March 2017, available on Youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYkEPHH2xB8. Here's my transcription of a key segment from 14:15 to 15:50 in the video, as Givens explains how he thinks Joseph thought about Egyptian hieroglyphs:
We've had a few references today to Nineteenth Century Egyptomania. The point that I want to make is that the kind of Egyptomania that I think might have been most relevant to Joseph Smith's religious fashioning predates the Napoleonic engagement with Egypt. It goes back to the Early Modern period. And I'm going to just summarize this very quickly for you by saying this, that the notion of hieroglyphs in particular in the Enlightenment and Romantic circles carried echoes of priestly powers of expression and discernment. But the term was also taken to imply an almost mystical concision and economy of expression unknown to modern languages. Many language theorists working in the Nineteenth Century to try to trace language to its Adamic form were convinced that the further back you go, the more compressed and concise language becomes. By the time you get to the hieroglyph, ... you have the linguistic equivalent of a kind of neutron bomb, so that the notion being that here is a priestly emblem that has magically and mystically oracularly condensed within itself worlds of meaning which only a priestly power can unlock and allow to blossom into fullness. When I think of Joseph Smith laboring over the Egyptian Papyri and the whole Abrahamic cosmology that emerges out of this, it seems to me that we get a perfect understanding of how the hieroglyph was understood.
Interesting and eloquently expressed, but to me this seems painfully unaware of some essentials. Givens here places Joseph into the mindset prior to the Napoleonic engagement with Egypt, meaning, of course, that Given's feels Joseph and his brethren were somehow swept up in Egyptomania without being aware of the hottest news in the world of Egyptomania, namely, that the Rosetta Stone had been found showing Egyptian to be a running language like Greek, hot and widely discussed news from 1799, coupled with the 1822 news that Champollion had begun to decipher Egyptian. These were key drivers for Egyptomania in the 19th century, and cannot be so readily excised from Joseph's world. Givens' view arguably would divorce Joseph from his environment in 1835 and from the very Egyptomania that supposedly inspired him.

Even if the Joseph Smith of 1835 were still in "uneducated farm boy mode" and had been unaware of Champollion before purchasing the mummies and scrolls from Chandler, Chandler and the many other educated people who would come to Kirtland to see the artifacts and meet Joseph surely would have broken the well-known news to him: "What, you didn't hear? It's largely a phonetic language that can be deciphered; it's not all mysticism with vast treasures of text hidden within each character."

Givens' view, romantic as it may be,  also requires divorcing Joseph from the Book of Mormon. Joseph's views on Egyptian arguably should not depart wildly from the views expressed by Mormon in the manuscript Joseph translated. Mormon in Mormon 9:32 tell us that:
[W]e have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.
The reformed Egyptian of the Book of Mormon reflected speech. It must have been phonetic, or at least the reformed script Mormon referred to, like the reformed Egyptian script of demotic. That sensible view is wildly incompatible with the romantic notions Givens and others want to see in Joseph's approach to the Book of Abraham. But there's more to consider. On the Joseph Smith Papers website, you can see this quote from Joseph as he discusses the title page of the Book of Mormon, which came from the last plate (not the last character!) in the Nephite record:
I would mention here also in order to correct a misunderstanding, which has gone abroad concerning the title page of the Book of Mormon, that it is not a composition of mine or of any other man’s who has lived or does live in this generation, but that it is a literal translation taken from the last leaf of the plates, on the left hand side of the collection of plates, the language running same as ​all​ Hebrew ​ writing​ in general​. 
It was a running language. Not an utterly mystical one where each squiggle could be paragraphs of English. With his experience in reformed Egyptian behind him, does it stand to reason that once he saw the Egyptian scrolls in 1835, he would suddenly reverse course and see it as pure mysticism completely unlike Hebrew, no longer phonetic or a running language?

Further evidence against such a view comes from Joseph's comments on the meaning of the Facsimiles. The four hieroglyphs for the four sons of Horus become a remarkably concise "the four quarters of the earth," a statement that is actually quite accurate (but you aren't going to hear that from critics). Other statements he makes regarding the facsimiles and the characters tend to be equally brief. No sign of magical compactness with neutron bombs of meaning waiting to be unfolded. That idea died swiftly, though not universally, as news of the translation of the Rosetta Stone spread. It was old news when Joseph saw the scrolls.

Unfortunately, Givens' view may have been shaped by an unwarranted opinion from the editors of Volume 4 of the Joseph Smith Papers, one of whom, Brian Hauglid, is a co-author with Givens on an upcoming book of the Pearl of Great Price (coming out in August), where, sadly, I expect the beleaguered Book of Abraham might receive a little more unnecessary beleaguering based on the popular model of Joseph erroneously seeing worlds of text in a few squiggles, and, if my fears come true, the Book of Abraham treatment will lack discussion of the many treasures in favor of its antiquity and in favor of other models of the translation. After all, Hauglid has openly expressed his hostility to "apologetics" and has denounced the LDS Egyptologists who have pointed to many important evidences which genuinely need to be considered. In Volume 4 of the Joseph Smith Papers, we read the questionable view that Champollion's work really wasn't well known until decades later and that it did not really changed the way typical people thought about Egyptian. Here's the statement from the opening pages:
Even after Champollion's groundbreaking discoveries, though, some continued to assert competing theories about Egyptian hieroglyphs, whether they rejected Champollion's findings or were ignorant of them. Indeed, in America in the 1830s and 1840s, Champollion's findings were available to only a small group of scholars who either read them in French or gleaned them from a limited number of English translations or summaries. (Volume 4, p. xviii)
That's an astonishing assertion. Americans in the 1830s had not heard of Champollion's work? Only a tiny group of scholars were in on the news? And should we also believe that news of the Rosetta Stone and its related implications had also gone unnoticed in the U.S.? Sure, the detailed scholarly work of Champollion was for scholars, but the headlines were for everyone. Was there Egyptomania or not?

Was Champollion an unknown in Joseph's day? If so, one clue might be found in books and newspapers that mention Champollion. Do they need to take several sentences to explain to all the non-scholars and non-French speakers just who he is and what the Rosetta Stone was in order to bring readers up to speed, or do they act as if everyone knows the man and what he did? Below is an 1828 newspaper from Delaware, not far from where the Saints were. The source is the Delaware Journal, October 10, 1828, page 2, available at the Library of Congress' Chronicling America site (https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov):



Here it is taken for granted that readers know who Champollion is, and that his first name need not be given, just M. for Monsieur. It is taken for granted that readers know that he has translated Egyptian hieroglyphics, and even the Rosetta Stone need not be mentioned. That he can read an Egyptian scroll is taken for granted. That's not news -- the news is what might be on the scroll. This was an era when people knew of Champollion. How could there be Egyptomania without being aware of the most amazing news in the history of Egyptology, that Champollion had begun to decipher Egyptian? And what the Rosetta Stone shows us is that a reasonable number of Greek characters correspond to a reasonable number of Egyptian characters. 

Maybe folks in Delaware were up to speed on this, but perhaps you are wondering about the more remote netherworld of Ohio. Could those more rural folks, perhaps swept up in their own agrarian brand of Egyptomania, have heard anything of the Rosetta Stone and its translator? The following story from an Ohio newspaper in 1837 does remind us of the history of the Rosetta Stone, but assumes readers understand its multilingual nature. Champollion and Dr. Young are mentioned as if readers will know these famous men with no need to give their first names or the details of what they did regarding their "discoveries concerning hieroglyphic language of Egypt." The source is the Maumee Express, November 18, 1837, p. 2, also available at Chronicling America (hat tip to Val Sederholm):

(Click to enlarge)


Critics of the Book of Abraham and even some faithful LDS writers have proposed that crazed Egyptomania fueled the imagination of the early Latter-day Saints, leading them to believe that Egyptian was a purely mystical language where a single character could require paragraphs of text to convey the intricate details hidden within. Such thinking was rapidly overthrown by the 1799 discovery of the Rosetta Stone and especially the 1822 translation work. Val Sederholm does a great job in describing what that would mean for ordinary people in Ohio during the Kirtland era (the text below is an excerpt from his I Began to Reflect blog, "What did Joseph Smith say about the nature of Egyptian hieroglyphs?"):
What did Ohioans in Joseph Smith's day know about Champollion's cracking of the Egyptian hieroglyphic script?

The Maumee Express, dated 18 November 1837 (page 2), gives us the answer.

In a notice entitled "Antique," [shown above] we read that "The Currators [sic] of the Albany Institute [Albany, New York] acknowledge the donation of a copy in plaster of the Rosetta Stone, now in the British Museum, from Henry James Esq."

The notice, doubtless published in various states, goes on to say: "The interest of this piece of antiquity is increased by the fact that all the discoveries of Dr. Young and Champollion concerning the hieroglyphic language of Egypt, originated in a study of the inscription on it."

One thing to admire about this little notice is how it tosses off "all the discoveries of Dr. Young and Champollion" without elaboration. Ohioans, and other Americans, back in 1837 knew more about "all the discoveries of Dr. Young and Champollion" than do Ohioans today.


Professor John T. Irwin has written about how these sensational discoveries awoke American intellectual--and, yes, imaginative--curiosity among academics and the populace at large. "In 1829 Henry Wheaton, the noted legal historian and diplomat, published in the North American a twenty-five-page review of one of Champollion's works." By 1831 Edward Everett was already publishing lengthy, widely-distributed, articles on the question of Champollion's priority over Thomas Young, while at once dismissing Athanasius Kircher's older views about hieroglyphs as metaphysical emblem with snorts of disdain: "utterly baseless;" "laboriously absurd" (John T. Irwin, American Hieroglyphics, 4-5). On the other hand, "laboriously absurd" also perfectly describes the symbolic priestly writing at Dendara, a system of hieroglyphic writing students struggle to grasp even today. And at Dendara we find the great astronomical ceiling, the mapped Egyptian heaven, ironically the object of Everett's attention. 

I'm just looking over the shoulder of a typical Ohio farmer in 1837, as he opens his newspaper and nods knowingly. . .


Egyptology sprang from the discovery of the Rosetta Stone in 1799. Because the stone bore a text in hieroglyphic, demotic, and Greek, the world thereafter knew that "the hieroglyphic language of Egypt" was a running script as Greek was a running script, or perhaps as Chinese was a running ideographic script. 1799 thus marks a clean break between timeless speculations about the metaphysical nature of the script and what scholars now plainly saw on the Stone. The news went everywhere--even to the American frontier.

And to the South--and on to Hawaii, where the work of Young, Champollion, and Rosselini was pondered beneath the palms of Kona and Waikiki (The Polynesian). 
The Edgefield Advertiser (South Carolina), dated 12 April 1838 (pg. 1), has much to say about the work of Champollion:


"The genealogical and chronological table of Abydos, discovered in 1818, by Mr. Bankes, so well studied, explained, and commented upon by Champollion [see, they knew a lot about all this], and which is universally regarded as the most interesting and precious monument which has been drawn from the ruins of ancient Egypt since the celebrated stone of Rosetta. . ." (the italic added).

Library of Congress, Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/


The above sampling, easily multiplied, shows both keen interest and an easy familiarity--not to know about these breakthroughs in 1837 would be like not knowing about the railroad or the steam engine.

One thing is for sure: the documentary evidence upsets conclusions put forward by the editors of the latest volume of the Joseph Smith Papers (Documents 5): "Though French scholar Jean-Francois Champollion came to recognize the phonetic nature of Egyptian hieroglyphs during the 1820s and early 1830s, his ideas were not fully embraced or widely published until decades after his death in 1832" (p. 81, italic added). "Though news of Champollion's work had reached the United States by the 1830s, few Americans had access to it or understood the significance of his work on Egyptian hieroglyphs" (83 n. 354; Isaac Stuart's translation of Greppo's essay on Champollion, Boston, 1830, is mentioned). 

There is a need to sort out the basic difference between Champollions's written work and his winged ideas.

Professor Irwin hits the nail on the head: "The name Champollion appears in some of the most important literary works of the American Renaissance". . . "Yet for most modern readers, it is a name that requires an identifying footnote" (Irwin, ibid., 3). Ohioans in 1837 didn't need a Jean-Francois attached to their Champollion.
If we want a "a perfect understanding of how the hieroglyph was understood," we need to quit looking at the Book of Abraham and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers with a blurry romantic lens. We need to pay attention to what Joseph Smith actually said and did. The Kirtland Egyptian Papers, whose dates may be much later than the Joseph Smith Papers Project indicates (see "Moses Stuart or Joshua Seixas? Exploring the Influence of Hebrew Study on the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language"), simply cannot reflect the translation in process, no matter how appealing,  romantic, or scholarly that seems, but represent some strange and perhaps romantic effort after at least much of the translation was done, an exercise that was quickly abandoned. It's time we consider the data more fully and with the proper lens.

Though I disagree with some of the views that Dr. Terryl Givens has expressed, I remain a fan and am very appreciative of his many excellent LDS-related works. Things are complex with the Pearl of Great Price, though, and popular theories among scholars (and critics) can lead to blindness and painful errors. I've made many myself as I blog and write, and recognize that I also need to called to task when I blunder. That's how we learn and progress.

For Brian Hauglid, whose transformative journey has unfortunately challenged the faith of some impressionable Latter-day Saints, may I suggest that you step back and learn from the Book of Mormon before you reconsider what the Book of Abraham documents actually show.  Have a conversation with Jack Welch and the things he has learned about the early Book of Mormon manuscripts, especially the clues from the mistakes that scribes make when they are transcribing dictation versus copying an existing manuscript. Then evaluate the claims of Dan Vogel regarding the two manuscripts that Dan and you believe reveal Joseph Smith dictating fresh text for the Book of Abraham from a few characters in the margins. With that added awareness, it may become apparent to you that some important assumptions in your transformative journey was wrong. Then look at the influence of Hebrew study on the KEP, including Moses Stuart's strange Hebrew coin letter for letter #2, beth, which just happens to be exactly the same as the Egyptian Counting document for the number 2. That and the other obvious uses of Hebrew letters in the KEP strongly suggests that the dating of the GAEL and other key documents must be much later than you and our critics have been assuming. Reset your assumptions, drop the hostile accusations and recognize that your fellow mortals make all sorts of mistakes but may be acting in good faith, Joseph Smith included, and seek guidance on how you should balance the legitimate question marks with the significant body of non-abhorrent apologetic data that deserves more room than you've left for it in your recent remarks. The Book of Abraham is puzzling, but wonderful, and need not be recast as mere human error from a prophet who didn't know the first thing about translation. Indeed, the nature of his translation from the reformed Egyptian of the Book of Mormon suggests that at least when speaking as a prophet through the power of God, he somehow knew a great deal about that running language.


This post is part of a recent series on the Book of Abraham, inspired by a frustrating presentation from the Maxwell Institute. Here are the related posts:

109 comments:

Clark said...

I think you're right that more attention has to be paid to popular understanding about Egyptian and not just the more "mystical" tradition in the hermetic, masonic and platonic traditions. I think the latter definitely are an influence but simultaneously those interested in Egyptian almost certainly would be paying attention to the understanding of the prior decades and not just Kircher's ideas or what persisted in the masonic mythic tradition.

Anonymous said...

I love the way that what Joseph wrote about Egyptian can be evidence of his knowledge of Champollion, but the BoA’s passages about “intelligences” etc. are not evidence of Smith’s knowledge of Philosophy of a Future State.

It seems that if the evidence goes against Smith, we get snide cracks about his non-existent “vast frontier library.” If the evidence favors Smith, then Jeff assumes a much more liberal and realistic view of the way ideas circulate in a culture. Since I’ve been chiding Jeff on the latter point for some time now, I guess I should be glad for this progress, however partial.

Now if Jeff would only start thinking seriously about his apologetic methodology, which regularly (and quite predictably) generates methodological artifacts that he mistakes for “bull’s eyes.”

— OK

Jeff Lindsay said...

OK, I'm a little disappointed when you repeat the same things with declarations of triumph rather than reading and processing my responses. I've provided a fairly detailed response to Fawn Brodie's highly irresponsible and unreliable claims of plagiarism from Thomas Dick both here to some degree and at The Interpreter. Please read and consider my remarks in "Joseph Smith’s Universe vs. Some Wonders of Chinese Science Fiction," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 29 (2018): 105-152. While you are there, please read some of the many other articles there. They might be helpful to you.

In that article, I mentioned that the word "intelligence" for soul was a relatively widely used religious term. For Joseph to use a term from his environment is hardly a case if "plagiarism" -- that's what language is. Language, of course, involves terms and concepts expressed in ways we pick up from our environment. "Intelligence" was not a telltale invention of Thomas Dick, whose teachings actually contradict some of Browdie's claims. If you think "intelligence" for a human soul is a unique invention of Thomas Dick, then simply Google it in Google Books, and set the time filter to 1600 to 1835. You can search for the plural only, which will give you fewer but more focused hits. It was out there. Consider, for example, this 1792 publication as it speaks of fallen souls or "lapsed intelligences" and their need for redemption through the Atonement of Christ. A good reminder! May we all pursue transformative journeys in that direction.

Jeff Lindsay said...

There's a difference between general concepts that are "out there" and unusual trivia that requires a specific source. "Intelligences" was out there, Champollion was out there, but Olishem as a place near Ur, the four sons of Horus as the four quarters of the earth, metal plates as an ancient form of preserving scripture, Nahom/Nehem as a specific place in Yemen, and Bountiful as a green place due east of Nahom, were not concepts one can reasonable expect to have been "out there" in Joseph's environment. In fact, he was mocked for many of these "bulls-eyes". Finding rare European maps with Nehem's name on it does not provide a reasonable explanation for Nahom in the Book of Mormon. Finding scattered unique and unusual concepts in books that Joseph probably didn't read or have access to does not explain the origins of the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham. There needs to be a reasonable mechanism for the transmission of that information. Intricate details don't circulate the way exciting headlines do.

Anonymous said...

Jeff - I'm majorly disappointed when you repeat the same things with declarations of triumph rather than reading and processing many, many of the solid retorts in a decade of comments on your blog. Nahom, metal plates, etc., all thoroughly debunked and you consistently run away from rejoining because you can't. OK pointing out that your language games lack a principle of scientific rigor called falsifiability, was pointed out a long, long time ago. When its right, its a translation, when its wrong its voice of the translator. You originally denied any Mormon ever played the voice of the translator game, only to become one of your favorite games.

Jeff, when are you ever going to address any of the substantive items instead of repeating the same debunked inane items over and over again.

Anonymous said...

Because Givens and Hauglid fundamentally misunderstand the nature of Joseph Smith's revelations, we're going to get a lot of unhelpful and uninteresting things from them in this book.

Anonymous said...

A couple of quick questions, Jeff:

First, what are the odds of flipping a coin ten times and having the coin come up exactly in this order? —

heads
heads
tails
heads
tails
heads
tails
tails
tails
heads

Second, how would you estimate the odds of Joseph Smith having some knowledge of View of the Hebrews, a map of Arabia, a Captain Kidd book or map depicting Moroni and Comora, The Late War, etc. (add a half dozen or so other works the critics claim Smith might have drawn from).

What would you give as a ballpark figure as the odds that Smith, despite his lack of formal education, his lack of access to big libraries, etc., might have been able to peruse these works?

— OK

Anonymous said...

"There needs to be a reasonable mechanism for the transmission of that information."

And your reasonable explanation is divine intervention? The two don't exist together.

For OK's theory to be infinitely more reasonable, all he must do is prove that the items you listed above were known. For your theory to be reasonable, you must first prove that God exists, second, that he interferes in the doings of man, third that he chose Joseph Smith as his mouthpiece, and fourth that Joseph got it right. I'd like you to start at the top. . .

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure that that your Champollion argument proves anything. Consider this quote from him regarding Egyptian:

"It is a complex system, writing figurative, symbolic, and phonetic all at once, in the same text, the same phrase, I would almost say in the same word."

Does Champolion tell us that one symbol can't represent multiple lines of text?

Conflict of Justice said...

OK,

The issues you bring up are soundly debunked, and not relevant to the discussion. The only actual similarity to View of the Hebrews is the idea that Hebrews migrated to America, which many people have theorized. The similarities to The Late War are nonsense, carefully framed by CES Letter and others to look similar, but not alike when viewed in context. It is pure confirmation bias. You can see similarity between two things when you want so badly to have evidence Joseph Smith looked it up. It's why conspiracy theorists are absolutely sure aliens visited the Mayans when they see a gold figurine that looks like an airplane. Captain Kidd and the Comoros theory is a Wikipedia hoax based on falsehoods. The island's name was Comoros, not Camora as CES Letter and other Antimos allege, and the city Meroni didn't have that name until after the Book of Mormon was published. Antimos are desperate to build some kind of narrative for how the Book of Mormon was created because it seems so impossible if you don't believe it is divine. It's easy to take snippets of things out of context and draw a false association.

As for the actual issue of this excellent blog post by Lindsay, even the "experts" and church schools are prone to look at things outside of proper context and see what they want to see, and rather than tilt bias toward the church narrative this inevitably seems to tilt things toward a skeptic narrative. It's an interesting phenomenon. I am very grateful we have people like Jeff Linsay fact-checking and scrutinizing evidence.

Anonymous said...

Conflict if justice - most critics I know do not think Joseph Smith used the late war. It merely indicates the similarity of using a King James version style of narating and that such a technique is obviously not unique to Smith. The late war represents an excellent proof of concept that predates the Book of Mormon. the evidence for camorah islands and Capt kidd is stronger than the late war tid bit, but even most critics think it is a weak item, but does surpass Jeff's standard of plausibility, but there way more interesting items to critique.

CoJ, you r guilty of everything you're accusing OK of. Your hypocrisy, double standard is kind of a the whole point.

JoePeaceman said...


Another awesome article, thanks Jeff. This is important. In the past I’ve just accepted the idea that early LDS had no helpful knowledge of Champollion. I haven’t had time to read all of what you’ve written previously but, if I understand correctly-
as you are ingeniously pointing out, before WWP created the GAEL: they (or he) had a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew and the structure, with meanings, behind the original characters of the alphabet (perhaps some of this is from the discussion in Stuart’s GofHL). This knowledge may show Stuart's influence (if not Seixas). And, (I think you’ve discussed some of this previously) evidence also indicates that they, or he, had some previous knowledge of how the BofA story would play out, if not a complete knowledge of up to Abr. 3. They also clearly had some knowledge of Semitic and Egyptian names, culture, places, etc. etc., and perhaps some Greek (Egyptus, and so on).
Also, interestingly, they didn’t consider Joseph to be a linguistic authority (disagreed, even debated pronunciations, etc. sought for a different teacher, and JS was excited about getting one, etc.) but probably did see a relationship between some of the most ancient writing on the BofM plates and Hebrew, Egyptian, and Adam. All of this fits well with the evidence as provided by Gee, Sederholm, you, etc.
Vogel and Co.s claims seem less and less logical each day.
It would be interesting to know more about what Brian is thinking on this one....

JoePeaceman said...

ANONYMOUS, OK??
Hi, again- nice to see that you’ve tried to work in some on-topic and upbeat thoughts this time :). I also enjoyed reading CofJ and Jeff’s patient responses. I’m a bit behind on my reading. Could you please point me to evidence showing how familiar JS was with Philosophy of a Future State? It might be a big step forward for your desire to enlighten. One thing is, if JS were a fraud, and was trying to convert Americans, Dick would be an excellent source. Cowdery quotes him in support of our future state, yet, Smith goes against so many of Dick’s central themes- e.g. as Jeff pointed out, “intelligences” was a commonly used 19th C. word, BUT as he probably also pointed out, Joseph’s “intelligences” were our eternal selves, un-created, disembodied, etc. Dick’s "intelligences" were created, and were general living things (i.e. included animals, angels, etc. but NOT rocks, etc.) apparently created by an ex-nihilo type God. If Critics find that out, they’ll probably argue that Joseph never actually read P of a FS. If you have evidence showing that he really had recently been reading it (Brodie, Palmer, etc. seemed to have evidence that JS spent a lot of time studying it but, unfortunately, I'm unaware of them sharing that evidence before passing). This evidence could more firmly help establish his independence on that one, along with all the others.

And, with as little diversion as you can muster, could you please point out where you gave “...solid retorts in a decade of comments on your blog. Nahom, metal plates, etc., all thoroughly debunked…” The best links to Jeff's previous blogs should do, not much time here. I’ll do my best to give some accolades if you’ve finally done it…. “debunked Nahom, metal plates, etc.” :) And, with that kind of moxie and dedication, you could probably make a lot of money working for hate groups and such, so why limit it to Jeff, if u do?

Thanks, much appreciated. <3

Ramer said...

JoePeaceman, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but don't expect the non-OK Anonymous to actually give you anything you asked for. I've interacted with him in the past, and all he does is assume the absolute worst out of everyone he responds to and use the assumption to insinuate that you are the one doing all the bad things you've said, complete with blatant lies, ad hominem insults, and unsourced blanket statements.

(Watch - now he's going to make a comment like that about me. Start the clock!)

JoePeaceman said...

Thanks for the tip Ramer :), seems like he's an anti-Mormon then...those are the symptoms, as I understand them ;) He must know there's a huge difference between being aware of relatively widespread stories of Champollion cracking the phonetic aspects of Egyptian VS limping 400 miles (or even the critic's 40 (why not drop a zero or two?) to Western PA, to find a fitting place name for Lehi's party (did he sneak a peek at Reisebeschreibung nach Arabien und den umliegenden Ländern or Heron's translation, Or?), traveling back in time to create the connection between Native Americans and Semites, knowing steel swords would be discovered from Nephi's time, and so on and on and on.....

Anonymous said...

“point me to evidence showing how familiar JS was with Philosophy of a Future State?”

Joe,

Interesting that the similarities aren’t evidence enough for you. It seems your standard for evidence changes when a couple of quotes about Champollion are given. Can you point us to evidence showing how familiar JS and his cohorts were with Champollion and his work?

JoePeaceman said...

ANONYMOUS OK??
The similarity between JS and Dick's spellings of hundreds of words, including "intelligences", could be used as evidence that JS had read Dick's Philosophy as a child, while he was gathering the necessary information for his future BofM, BofM, BofA, etc. But, at least by 1833, Joseph was using the word "intelligences" in completely different ways, even though he still spelled "it" Dick's way! So, even if they originally used the same 1824 dictionary, Joseph somehow managed to branch off in his theology.

And, I'm not sure how long I've had the privilege of knowing and being watched by you, but if you've noticed those subtle changes I've been making in my standards, you've been paying far more attention to me than anyone else is, and that's really kind of you.

And yes, I happen to know of an enlightening blog from a guy going by the screen name "Jeff" (I believe some call him "Lindsay"), he provides evidence for "how familiar JS and his cohorts were with Champollion and his work".... I hope that helps you with your desire to help other people at all times : ). Is there anything else I can do to repay your kindness?

Hope you don't mind if I ask you some questions, you might be the only one awake this time of day:
Were you able to find the decade of comments where you "thoroughly debunked" metal plates, Nahom, etc.?

And, more on topic, do you lean more towards Vogel's explanation of the origins of the BofA (paragraphs from a character) or do you believe it was less miraculous? I just have such a hard time understanding how people could believe all that, when it makes little sense....almost like they're saying the BofA came from thin air, rather than papyri or revelation....just don't get it bro., no offense to your beliefs or anything (if you feel that way), just trying to understand.

Anonymous said...

Joe,

You’ve been responding to a person who doesn’t sign his posts “OK.” Why would you assume you are responding to “OK”?

I am not the poster “OK,” though I agree with most of what he posts on here because it makes sense and has roots in sound academic research and knowledge. You on the other hand, have an interesting combination of smugness and ignorance that makes for an entertaining, if unenlightening read.

“if you've noticed those subtle changes I've been making in my standards, you've been paying far more attention to me than anyone else is”

One need only read your posts above to see your shifting standards. You ask for specific examples of “how familiar JS was with Philosophy of a Future State” to prove that it influenced Smith, but when Jeff provides examples of some American writers referencing Champollion as evidence that JS knew the Egyptian code had been cracked, you take that claim at face value. I’m merely requesting that you maintain your high standards and provide us with examples of JS or anyone within his circle referencing Champollion.

For those who have studied literature, it’s easy to find evidence of the 19th century in all of the works Joseph translated. Combine that with finding specifics in the BoM that were available to be had in Joseph’s time, and you have evidence enough that they were borrowed. Then, as I mentioned above, it is up to you to prove divine intervention, which is much more difficult to do. The more reasonable explanation is that the information was borrowed.

JoePeaceman said...

OK, so you're not OK...I still love you : ),
even though you might be missing the point..s. I’m almost certain that JS was influenced by Thomas Dick, and even you are, obviously, influenced by him. The off-topic question was- if Joseph was that enamored with Thomas Dick (and I was hoping you could give even more evidence to support that he was), why didn’t he actually go along with more of what Thomas taught? Yes, they used similar Bible based cultural languages (as Jeff may have explained over a decade) but JS disagreed in fundamental ways. Dick was popular in the States. Oliver quotes him at length to support his own faith. Joseph was likely even more familiar with his work than Champollion’s (the more the better) and it would be a shrewd and gainful move to “restore” (wink wink) teachings similar to Dick’s Bible philosophy. BUT, Joseph’s teachings on intelligences, creation, (for examples), etc. and The Book of Abraham’s teachings on cosmology, etc. go against Dick’s in unpopular ways. It’s almost as if JS thought his “philosophy” was the philosophy of men. With all of his gifts, JS could have lived a long, wealthy, and easy life if he would have only conformed a bit more to America’s popular Protestantism.

JoePeaceman said...

And, for the rest of your questions?- I don’t know if Joseph knew the code has been cracked, but Jeff gives evidence that shows that it is more likely than I once believed. There is a good chance that he could have known. It might be a waste of time explain but, notice that I said “In the past I’ve just accepted the idea that early LDS had no helpful knowledge of Champollion.” Now there’s evidence that I MAY have been wrong to simply assume that. Not “JS knew the Egyptian code had been cracked” but, yes, I do take the newspaper articles “at face value” as a matter of maintaining “high standards.” I don’t need to provide examples “of JS or anyone within his circle referencing Champollion” to sustain my beliefs that it might be wrong to assume that JS didn’t know about Champollion. It’s an assumption that I made without any legitimate evidence to back it up. Jeff has done a great job of overturning THAT assumption. We will need further evidence if we are to know for sure…. On the other hand, you’ve made some specific claims of having accomplished certain tasks for decades. I only asked you to point me to the blog and a clear comment. : ) See, my standards VS your standards. Different, and different is OK : )

“For those who have studied literature, it’s easy to find evidence of the 19th century in all of the works Joseph translated.” Of course, he lived in the 19th Century. “It’s a cow farm, gonna be cows outside” That’s like arguing that Isaiah wasn’t inspired because he “wrote after the manner of the Jews”, or arguing that Moses isn’t a prophet because he shows Egyptian influence in his revelations, they should be universal, right? Maybe he should have given commandments about phone usage?

“Combine that with finding specifics in the BoM that were available to be had in Joseph’s time, and you have evidence enough that they were borrowed.” Big leap of faith for U? Lets use Nahom as an example, the Liahona, the Semitic/Native American religious connection, etc. e.g. please show how you demolished Nahom, or etc. so I know what we are discussing. And, we could converse on those topics on a BofM blog, this is more interesting right now.

“Then, as I mentioned above, it is up to you to prove divine intervention, which is much more difficult to do.” Not really (i.e. why is that up to me? Every truth seeker is obligated to answer that question for himself, and not more difficult)

“The more reasonable explanation is that the information was borrowed.” NOW we can get back to our topics….Reason, logic, evidence

JoePeaceman said...

Gotta stay focused if you want to save the world, not-OK-Anonymous. You’ve probably missed your opportunity to help enlighten the world with even more evidence that Joseph was enraptured with Thomas. It’s very interesting that critics have been forced to put in so much effort to explain away the BofA. Why not just take it at face value? Instead, y’all have come up with a complex scenario claiming Joseph had to have sources, but this is mainly a statement acknowledging that he couldn’t have just made it up. There are too many details, too many targets, and so on and on, but, alas--) I’m here because I have some different questions. It started with wondering how someone as awesome as Brian could dis on people as awesome as Gee, Muhlestein etc. (others by association might include Nibley, and those of us who can't see logic in Dan) AND accept arguments as illogical as those presented by Vogel. Now please stay focused not-OK Anonymous, yes, Brian might be simply shooting for niceness but, why not be nice to the faithful also? So, I might be missing something, and would appreciate your focused help in understanding. Here’s a question: the Critic’s idea that the KEP represent the actual translation makes very little sense to me, will you share evidences and reasons, etc. for your hope (if you have any) that Joseph actually pulled the BofA out of his hat (so to speak), rather than having an actual source?
Right now, the more sensible idea seems to be that Joseph actually gave us an ancient record and, less importantly, that WWP, WP, and FGW had a BofA manuscript in hand when they created the JSP/KEP manuscripts (partial, if not substantial). This was the assertion of Kerry, etc. There is abundant evidence for that, and Jeff has shared much of it. What evidence is there to the contrary?


I hope Jeff doesn’t mind if I post some longer comments today. Here’s some trivia about why I’m here, and not going away until Dan, Brian, Muhlestein, Gee, etc. agree and make up ;) : I’m no scholar. I did graduate from High School (Utah’s Kearns, go cougs, yay :)). I have “some college,” but chose to work in a bread factory, following a youthful belief that it was legitimate work, more helpful to humanity, etc.--thinking emoji ; ).
I now put in long hours, sometimes troubleshooting with “Logix” software, and gathering information from machine Operators, supposed experts (Engineers, PhDs, etc.), replays, etc. and I eventually put together puzzle pieces, then test, and assess the truthfulness of breakdowns, routines, etc. by using logic- AND, OR, BUT, IF THEN, on/1=“true”, off/0=false, etc. If I make a big mistake, people could die. I’m not always right, nor are others. Some operators even lie, etc. BUT logic is useful, machines work well when the logic is correct... no need to send sophistry in my direction : ), not that you are, just sayin.

Anonymous said...

Joe - don't understand "you could probably make a lot of money working for hate groups and such". Are you starting with a poisoned well? If you are, then you have already proven that you are like others here, Jesus himself could appear to you and logical explained to you your errors in reasoning and you would call him a liar, so what is the point?

Anonymous said...

“With all of his gifts, JS could have lived a long, wealthy, and easy life if he would have only conformed a bit more to America’s popular Protestantism.”

You’re right. He fell into the trap that most cult leaders fall into—he couldn’t keep his hands off the ladies.

JoePeaceman said...


Dude, don’t give in to doubt. Stay the path :), you know I love you and I’m not at all intimidating (you’ve seen my credentials). Just saying there are hate groups, people trying to destroy faith, discourage primary teachers (get them to stop teaching children to: be kind, love neighbors, avoid drugs, be honest, take care of the earth, etc. etc.), and etc. They would be thrilled if you really had destroyed Nahom (not that it makes a difference to the truthfulness of the BofM, there’s sufficient evidence without that), but they, and we, know the BofM is an untouchable survivor. On the bright side, it might not be too late to join Jeff and others in sharing the beautiful message of the Restoration.

JoePeaceman said...

But, if you must stay on the spacious porch (so to speak), you can still be helpful in legitimate ways by honestly and openly joining me in seeking truth : ) Admitting that the BofM is true is a big first step toward approaching neutrality on BofA questions. There's no need to divert or anything else... You see, critics can't be neutral on the BofA. Any hint of the miraculous discredits their lives, incomes, etc. so they must turn blind eyes to most of the evidence.
You and I don't need that!
Having accepted the historic nature of the BofM sets us free! We can go in to BofA studies without needing it to be true OR false---this might not be making sense to you but think about it---we can accept that the BofA was a mistake OR that it wasn't, without losing anything. I can look at it without fear, with an open heart, no need to attack or close my eyes.
Critics can't do this. They have needs, reputations, motives, etc. (we all do, but I'm not going to fall to pieces either way).....so, let her rip tater chip... : ).

Q 1- do you really believe Vogel when he says the KEP represent the translation? If so, why?
Q-2 how do you explain the evidence for the BofA in context of Vogel's assertions (doesn't have to be Vogel, but you know, he's sort of a critical piper?

Anonymous said...

Joe - Who said anything about the BoM not being true? Like you said, Nahom has nothing to do with truth of the BoM. Everyone knows that the BoM is true and so is the Koran. Duh. How does accepting historic nature set us free? Free from what? Why can't we be whatever this free is, without accepting the historic nature of the BofM? How does a person destroy a hypothetical place (Nahom)? Do they drop a bomb a hypothetical bomb? Who are these mystery critics you speak of? I have never heard of any real person as you describe these critics. Who are these sadistic hate groups you speak of? Or did just make all that up, these supposed critics and hate groups don't real exist as you describe them?

JoePeaceman said...

Hmmm, so not-OK.
How about OK??
Any reflections?
Mirrors, without the smoke?

Or Dan Vogel? Maybe he could drop in again and respond to Jeff's evidences, or common sense, or CLEARLY explain the reasoning that supports his assertions…. ; ) : )

No offence not-Ok...still love ya, and it's really awesome that you know the BofM is true! It's a big step (I have no evidence for the Koran, but you're free to believe it). I'm not abandoning you....you've progressed a lot--bet you were awesome at dodge-ball as a kid... and now look at you :).

Anonymous said...

Big step, progressed? I guess you are confusing your Psychokinesis with me taking a step.

All these years since childhood and I am still not even half as good as you at dodge ball. Awesome.

Since you are not abandoning me, looking forward to actual answers to my questions.

Anonymous said...

Joe, I struggle to understand your reasoning. There's no logical thread to what you've written in your posts.

JoePeaceman said...


My friend, in all seriousness, please understand that I do care about you and like to have fun while seeking truth. I’m trying to understand some things and am sorry if I haven’t been clear :). I don’t have a lot of time to cover ground that I’ve already covered for myself. If u are really seeking answers, also, I’d be happy to pause, but I think it’s best to take one thing at a time and current topic (friendly fire) is best place to start.
: ). Do u have questions about the KEP-JSP and the BofA translation process from a Hauglid/Vogel point of view VS a more Jeff/Kerry/Gee point of view?

Also, I didn’t realize you were actually asking questions. It seemed more like judgments, conclusions, or accusations, etc. But, e.g., if you were asking if JS’s murderers justified themselves because he “couldn’t keep his hands off the ladies”, I’ll explain that those encouraging his murder, and the driving and extermination of members of Christ’s Church were doing so long before they knew anything about polygamy. And, in fact, while Joseph was a polygamist, some of the haters who sought his blood (and the blood of other LDS) actually couldn’t keep their hands off the ladies (or, evidently, in the case of Higbee and Bennett, women and men). There is also some evidence that the wife of W. Law (another founder of ex-Mormon and author of the Expositor), actually tried to seduce Joseph and did the Potiphar's wife thing when he refused. So, really, there’s no logical evidence indicating that Joseph was murdered for anything other than his faith in Christ. Bennett, for example, was also a leader, but tried to run a prostitution ring, and was upset when the house was raised by faithful LDS. He helped author one of the first anti-Mormon books, etc., so, of course, no one called for his blood, but he incited the murder of faithful servants of Christ.
I think I answered the question about why Joseph showed 19th Century influence but, if you want to discuss that more maybe we could find one of Jeff’s blog’s on that subject : )
Have a great day!

Anonymous said...

Joe - You appear to be talking to about 3 different Anons.

You did not answer any of Anon 10:50 questions, to which your justification appears to be " It seemed more like judgments, conclusions, or accusations, etc. " So you did recognized your reflection. Now that is real progress.

JoePeaceman said...

Oh, hmmm : ). “Who said anything about the BoM not being true?” Not me : ). I’m not sure why, but there are still some people who don’t know it’s true.
“ Like you said, Nahom has nothing to do with truth of the BoM.” I didn’t exactly say that, as you probably know, it doesn’t diminish but only adds

“How does accepting historic nature set us free?”

It helps reduce bias. Critics turn blind eyes to any evidence that seems miraculous, indicates that JS had a gift to translate, threatens their YouTube livelihood or funding, etc. and so on. If we are aware of the truth we can look without fear. I think Jeff, for example, is more more open vs Vogel

Free from what? See above.


Why can't we be whatever this free is, without accepting the historic nature of the BofM?

Im not sure, but I’ve never seen a BofA or BofM critic show willingness to accept that anything Joseph Smith did could possibly be by the gift and power of God. Those who see that the BofM came to us by the gift of God, are far more willing to accept that Joseph wasnt always right, wasn’t always perfect, still might have given us an ancient abrahamic record (for which there is abundant evidence, but oddly, critics can’t openly consider or acknowledge that the BofA is miraculous) etc. These are then more free to approach with an open mind : ).




“How does a person destroy a hypothetical place (Nahom)? “ some anonymous person implied that she did. I’m not sure what she was thinking. There’s some pretty solid evidence that it’s a real BofM place.

Do they drop a bomb a hypothetical bomb?” Not sure, maybe if u ask them, they might explain : )


“ Who are these mystery critics you speak of?” I didn’t speak of them specifically, but I’d assume they’re mysterious because no one knows who they are?
“I never heard of any real person as you describe these critics. Who are these sadistic hate groups you speak of? Or did just make all that up, these supposed critics and hate groups don't real exist as you describe them?”

Attacking LDS faith may seem to you like a bigoted game where everyone loses but, it’s really not. Any critic who distracts, discourages or otherwise leads members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from their faithful service in Christ, also, by default, discourages them from serving in Primary, distracts from eternal Sealings, and so on.


Have a nice day �� :)

Anonymous said...

Refreshing to see you admit you were just making it up. So there are no specific critics or hate groups that do the sadistic things you described. These were just conversation s you were having in your head.

"I’ve never seen a BofA or BofM critic show willingness to accept that anything Joseph Smith did could possibly be by the gift and power of God". That statement right there shows your bias, and you are the one in serious need of being set free. Best to get that rod out of your eye before looking at the speck in others. Match it up with the fact that you've declared you haven't seen any evidence for the Koran that really show reinforces your bias. Quinn for example wrote massive times of critique but maintains faith despite being excommunicated and even critizes other faithful Mormon critics for being skeptics.

"Solid evidence" for Nahom? Not even Jeff abuses English that badly. He describes Nahom tidbits more as interesting and cause for at least plausibility, but cautions they not bullseyes. If Nahom tidbits are "solid evidence" then so are Capt kidd /camorah, but few rational thinkers on the subject would describe Capt kidd camorah as solid evidence.

On that note, regarding historicity, even Jeff and the LDS church disagree with you and reject the once long standing and dearly held , nonetheless errant belief in the historicity claim that the lamanites are the principle ancestors of the native Americans.

We have made real progress, identified your bias and the rod in your eye.

JoePeaceman said...

...just saw this, still staying on track on current blogs but, research shows that we are more productive with some recess… : )

Didn't want to name any, but stuck with all who fit the requirements as mentioned : ).

I admit to having some bias, as with most humans. May I assume that your absolute absence of such imperfect humanities is due to the fact that you have evidence for the Koran, BofM, BofA, etc etc AND knowledge of Quinn, who is a BofA and BofM critic who shows "willingness to accept that things Joseph Smith did are by the gift and power of God"? I don't know a lot about Quinn's personal life. If he really does that, then I can say I know one : ). It will be awesome for you to have that so all critics can demonstrate neutrality.

And, I’m no grammarian, but I do know people from England, and many non-English speaking places. Some are bright enough to believe that an ancient stone altar is much more “solid” vs Palmer and Captain Kidd Camorah : ) I don’t know that Palmer gives him the same last name but-- there are critical arguments to the effect that: JS was extremely fond of book learning and searched many volumes, most unavailable to him and then, with the aid of his crutches, he skipped around to places that didn’t exist (e.g the NY town of Alma, apparently he was on his way to a restricted library (but "don't sign anything" "leave no trace," is what he always said) in Allegheny for this one, trying to find Bountiful, the turn, shazir or am, the people of Nahim, etc and then, as everyone knows, he originally changed the names a bit so no one would know) etc. This was all in an effort to find some ADDITIONAL Semitic and Mayan names, customs, culture, dna, symbolism, etc. for the BofM because he knew his family Bible map was missing those (but was good for others, yet to be discovered)? Once he arrived at the futuristic university library, instead of going through the effort of word searches for “Moriah, Moreh”, etc and “Ramah” (as in rameumptom, hill Ramah/Cumorah) etc. he decided to please his Captain Kidd loving treasure hunting buddies and thought of the Comoros Islands!! Then, after drinking (every day in the school of the prophets-which explains the visions by multiple people, including non-Mormon neighbors in the case of the Kirtland Temple dedication), he decided to add “Moroni” which he knew would soon (1897?) become the Capital city of the Comoros. This, also sounds an awful lot like Captain Moroni so double awesome
: ).
It was probably only a brilliant afterthought to tweak those scores of Semitic sounding names, just in case someone at BYU waxed all mormany about onomastics and wanted to create this—— https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Main_Page

Lastly, I don't remember saying that but I don't think Jeff will dare disagree with me once he knows how annoying I can be, and that the difference between "among" and "the" might only be progress, which we all hope to do eternally.

Have a nice day : ).

Anonymous said...

I can't tell, but somewhere in the mist of all those strawmen is a question.

Regarding NHM inscribed in a southern Arabian cemetery, see Ignatius Donnelly's abundant find of such coincidences to support his Atlantean Theory, the Lincoln Kennedy coincidences, and Chris Johnson discussion of the need for a baseline with NHM to maintain your consistency

Or don't, and just keep behaving the way you are, demonstrating to everyone how off the wall religion can make some people, insisting their stuff smells differently than everyone else's.

JoePeaceman said...

Why would I waste my time reading all of that when you’ve already done it and can tell me in a few sentences how it shows whatever it is you’re trying to tell me, so I can grow closer to God and increase in knowledge and happiness :), which is of course the object of all good people e.g Jeff.

Anonymous said...

“which is of course the object of all good people“

Are you implying that Atheists aren’t good people?

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:46 - May be you have already figured it out, but Joe really does not have a point, other to ramble on with a childish affect that his religion is awesome but for some reason he does not have evidence for the awesomeness of everyone else's religion.

Anonymous said...

Joe 9:26 - That is my point, why waste everyone's time. Why did you demand answers when you were never sincerely interested in them. A core component of Mormonism is sincerity and real intent, and you have proven our suspicions right: you never had either one, fake Mormon.

JoePeaceman said...


After I posted that I said to myself “That outta earn me some much needed attention! : )”.
In my world, when an atheist is in the service of his fellow beings, he is in the service of God. When we serve God, we draw nearer, and are more like God. Doesn’t matter if we believe in God or not. So, here again, it all depends on choices. No hard boxes, even Richard Dawkins could be good for a bit, if he chose to.

As far as NHM, Nihm, the people but certainly not place of NimnotNahom, the Bible book of Nahum that just happened to be left in the right place in 600BC, stone of Numh, "it's just luck Nahum!", etc. watch “Lehi’s Journey of Faith”, and read :
https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/joseph-and-the-amazing-technicolor-dream-map-part-1-of-2/
https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/history-nahom
"Nahom"? - KnoWhys - Book of Mormon Central
Lehi's Trail and Nahom Revisited | Book of Mormon Central
https://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/10/2/S00008-50e5e94d04c218Aston.pdf
https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/NAHOM;
(and at least I provided links, so you don't have to go searching for "chris johnson destroys the book of Nahum!.com" : ))

AND then explain how all that context is just another lucky shot. It’s not just the name, but the time, place, turn, context, route, etc. And, add to that the scores of other hits: the undeniable Mayan connection, steel, the desert dreams, the ups and downs of Mesoamerica, Middle Eastern Culture, Native American culture, etc. etc. AND after you read all of that, explain how your articles explain all of it away : ) "just lucky guesses"? "Joseph did a lot of research"? "Ethan Smith"? : )

And, as we know, if any of the not-OK anons had actually destroyed Nahom, the BofM, etc, you'd be able to explain how you did it in a few sentences. If asked, I could briefly explain how I know the BofM is true.... : ) But it's not my turn to answer questions.

And, now I have some more questions for you to not answer ; ).
Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints bad?
If you think yes, please state why.
If it’s generally a good thing, then what are you doing here?

And, isn't the BofA supposed to be the best of the best of the best internet ways to prove the Mormons false in 2 sentences (or something)? It's really odd that none of you are taking advantage of this great opportunity. I'm here with questions about the BofA, and you seem to be trying to make me an offender for a word? Or distract me with a bunch of rhetoric or sophistry? Hmmmmmmm? Something strange is afoot on Mormanity.
Still luv ya, unless that's offensive. : )

Anonymous said...

Apparently it is never your turn to answer questions. That says it all.

So you admit that you have no baseline to demonstrate how NHM is any better Ignatius Donnelly's abundant finds or the Lincoln Kennedy coincidences or the Anthon 1827 book.
Explained in a few sentences as requested. No rejoinder given, just demands to explain again with suggestions that the vast majority of academia is in heavy denial ("undeniable Mayan connection"), coupled with insistence that there is no absolute good or bad, but then demanding others make good or bad designation of things. Yes you have definitely entered bizzarro world.

JoePeaceman said...

:), did I miss one? I guess that explains your behaviors.....sorry, I’ve been really busy reading all the works of Donelly so I can find the Kennedy theory baseline of the Atlantans. I’ve heard that he found a book in the 1800s and it describes a place called Atlantis and gives a detailed map with some unmapped turns and places and names etc. Someone recently used google earth and actually followed his map to this city with people still living in it! And there’s now all this other evidence for Atlantis but I don’t really want to talk about that, it’s even better than the writing on the wall saying Atlantis, so it’s a bit scary for me as I’m trying to destroy the lives of those who’ve been to Atlantis because it’s fake because the people said they were Atlantieans, and the sign over the gate (dated by peer review to 10,000ybp) only said atlnts (apparently they didn’t use vowels). This was not the spelling given by Donnelly! everyone knows he got that from the Aztec atlatl (which means water also, or it was the Atlantic Ocean if he didn’t know any Aztec, so no way jose ) and everything else was just luck (like a hundred other things) : ). Sure, there were people, but HAHAHA, it’s hogwash! If you’d read everything on Atlantis you’d know this without all that well poisoning confirmation bias. No, I don’t need to tell u what the books actually say. It’s obvious. :) :) ;)

So, at least you admit that, although the Bible is God’s word, there is no better historical evidence for it than the Book of Mormon : ). (See, you can skip over all that Atlantis stuff and focus on this, that way people won’t think you’re paid to do this or anything.).

Still luv ya, even if it’s offensive. : ).

Why don’t you just step up anonymouses Ok/not ok, you don’t have to be right all the time to have friends. We know what we know and baffling us with bull doesn’t make you a better person. The Church does a lot of good and you probably don’t even know why you feel driven to attack and contradict that. Think about it please. :) peace out. :)

Anonymous said...

??? Bizzarro world.

JoePeaceman said...

Oops, sorry, just read the rest and looks like I missed another question. : ) no wonder you’re so angry with me.
I assume u felt it was demanding because u were demanding an answer from me when u presented a similar question (which I deserve because I’m a Mormon and just believe even though i did my best to answer, just like u :) and ask nicer than u but sorta like u :)

But yes, there is a clear relationship between the maya and Semitic peoples. I can’t say for sure how it got there but it’s there. :).


One difference between us is that, if I walked out into the sun, I’d admit it was sunny, even if the vast majority of scholars were to say it’s raining outside. : ).

JoePeaceman said...

And, for the anonymosis with short attention spans I’ll say- there r several differences between Donnelly’s Atlantis and Nahom, one important one is that Nahom exists, right now. You could go there on vacation. :)

Anonymous said...

“there is a clear relationship between the maya and Semitic peoples“

What is it? Geneticists don’t seem to tell the same story—hence the recent “among the principle ancestors” change.

Also, how do you explain the Wentworth letter (part of which was canonized as you will recall) in which Joseph repeats over and over again that it was made known unto him that the Book of Mormon peoples lived in this country?

Anonymous said...

I just typed Nahom into Google maps—I got no results. I guess I’ll scratch that one off my vacation list.

Anonymous said...

Joe - What anon is attacking "The Church does a lot of good"? What makes you think that anyone is angry with you? You seem to think the fact you admit have no baseline to compare the statistical significance of NHM, then someone else has admitted that the BoM is historical and historicity has something to do with the word of God? How do you make that jump? Where do you get all these weird ideas in your head?

FYI, Jeff is the one that says the Mormon church is like all other churches, so full of dearly held errant beliefs, that it is all corrupt and in need of "restoration".

Anonymous said...

Jeff usually explains things like this by changing "this country" to mean the whole Western hemisphere. Everything is explainable when words no longer have meaning.

Anonymous said...

Yeah Anon 1:18. Even though Joseph writes “In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded.”

Jeff also rejects Lucy Smith’s recital of Joseph describing to his family ”the ancient inhabitants of [the American] continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship,” even though in the Wenworth letter Joseph explains:

“I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country [America] and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was [also] made known unto me.”

I guess he never shared that information with his family. Lucy’s quote is completely out of context and character for Joseph.

JoePeaceman said...

There's a religious, symbolic, cultural, etc. relationship between Semitic peoples and Native Americans, especially the Maya. There is also a DNA relationship…...I’m pretty sure some geneticists are aware of it. And, don’t you think change is good? What are you trying to accomplish if not change? : ) (don’t worry, I don’t expect an answer, that’d be too much honesty)

You're really getting far from the BofA...? Odd....

JoePeaceman said...

I’ve never felt a need to explain the wentworth letter before, so don’t have a particular method. Joseph and other leaders have had many ideas that I don’t agree with, and that they later disagreed with as they learned. I’ve always felt that the Lehite party encountered people rather quickly after arriving on this continent. There were probably still millions of people related to the Jaredite immigrants, and millions of other first peoples. By Joseph Smith’s day, remnants of both peoples would certainly be in what was then “this Country” and “this continent”.
But, for you (since you’re fun now, and not so angry), I grabbed some quotes from FAIR to share (they do a lot of work for us, like you :)):

“I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country...a brief sketch…...of the records of the ancient prophets that had existed on this continent...The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country. This book also tells us that our Saviour [Savior] made his appearance upon this continent after his resurrection…..and blessing, as was enjoyed on the eastern continent, that the people were cut off in consequence of their transgressions…10”
Webster’s 1828 edition. ...refers to both the Eastern and Western continents. The Western continent, of course, would be what we today refer to as the Western hemisphere, comprised of North, Central, and South America. This usage is consistent with Joseph’s reference in the Wentworth letter, which the presentation does not quote fully:
Note that Joseph contrasts the events of “this continent” with the events of the “eastern continent.” In Joseph’s day, in other words, “this continent” didn’t refer solely to North America…”
This usage was followed by John Taylor’s placement of the Book of Mormon geography in Mesoamerica. Writing less than a year after Joseph’s death, Taylor called him

…one of the greatest men that ever lived on the earth; emphatically proved so, by being inspired by God to bring forth the Book of Mormon, which gives the true history of the natives of this continent; their ancient glory and cities:—which cities have been discovered by Mr Ste[ph]ens in Central America, exactly where the Book of Mormon left them.12
“...While the word “country” can refer to a kingdom or nation, in Joseph’s day it could also refer to “any tract of land, or inhabited land; any region, as distinguished from other regions.”...Even if we grant that it refers to a nation, it does little to help situate the Book of Mormon. The letter says only that “the remnant” of the Nephites and Lamanites “now inhabit this country.” This would be true wherever the Book of Mormon took place, since if Lehi left any descendants at all, all Amerindians would share a relation to the remnant he left behind by Joseph Smith’s day, fifteen hundred years later.16
Further, equating “country” with “nation” doesn’t take into account presentism. Today when we say “this country” it means everything from the 49th parallel to the Rio Grande River and everything from the Atlantic to the Pacific. When Joseph Smith made his statement, however, the country was much smaller, covering only the area from the Atlantic to approximately the Missouri River. There were only 26 states at the time, and much of what the LNAM notes as “Lamanite lands” up to the Rocky Mountains were simply not part of the country in early 1842. So, to which “country” would Joseph have been referring? That country with which he and Wentworth were familiar or the larger country…?”

JoePeaceman said...


Dude, that there is funny! : ). Some of those haters can only be funny by denigrating and bullying minorities (religious or other-and nowadays that’s typically only so called “Mormons”and their sacred texts or beliefs etc.) but, since you were witty there, I knew I could trust you, and I tried putting Nahom in maps (just like you) and I couldn’t find it either!! Then I tried “Bethabara,” and wham….nothin! So thought maybe none of it’s real. No John the Baptist, no Nephi, etc. ; )So, I was thinking this is going to save me a lot in donations, service, etc. but then I tried Wikipedia just to be sure (and everyone knows Wiki is always true) and found all this about the place where they mourned---

“After doing extensive research over several years at the site in Yemen, the location of Nahom was associated with the existing location and tribal name NHM (usually vocalized as NIHM or NEHEM or NAHM).....location and tribal area of NHM in the Jawf Valley in Yemen (15° 51' 0" North, 44° 37' 0" East, GPS coordinates 15.88, 44.615).......The root NHM has different meanings. The South Arabian root NHM is related to stone cutting. The Hebrew root NHM is found repeatedly in the Bible and relates to sorrow, hunger, consoling, and mourning (Damrosch 1987, pp. 128–29).[7] Scholars consider this root appropriate when used to refer to a place of burial and the expression of mourning (Goff, Sorenson & Thorne 1991, pp. 92–9). This theory is corroborated by a huge area of ancient burial tombs at 'Alam, Ruwayk, and Jidran about 25 miles (40 km) north of Marib that were examined by a French team at approximately the same time that the Bar'an excavation was completed. This burial complex is the largest such burial area known anywhere in Arabia (Aston 2001).

Early references to NHM
Edit
The name NHM denotes both a tribal region and a location in the southern part of Arabia (Brown 2001).”


So dang, if we had this sort of thing-- “15° 51' 0" North, 44° 37' 0" East, GPS coordinates 15.88, 44.615” for Atlantis your man Donnelly would be as awesome as you. We don’t really need it for Bethabara since a billion mainstream Christians are there to back us up on that one : ). But, nice to see that you agree that the best historical evidence for the Bible is the BofM

Anonymous said...

Church doesn’t agree with you.

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

Might I point out that you brought up the non-existent relationship between Mayans and BoM peoples.

Anonymous said...

Joe - nice to see you agree that the best historical evidence for the BoM is the voree plates.

JoePeaceman said...

"The Church" doesn't know everything, because "The Church" is people : )
and I brought up the clear relationship between the Maya and Semites... : ) your evidence for non-existence is probably just a refusal to look before contradicting, but I don't really know that : ) :0

luv ya

Anonymous said...

""the Church" is people" and Jesus said there are none good but God, therefore the Church is not good. Jeff is, right , it is all corrupt

Anonymous said...

So BoM people aren’t semitic. Got it.

Anonymous said...

And Mayans aren’t but have similarities, including as yet unproven genetic ties. Am I understanding you correctly?

JoePeaceman said...

I’m glad you thought about that for a while. True, we’re all sinners, and you’re just fairly calling all of God’s children to repentance as any good Christian might do (nominal or otherwise), so I’m guessing you're ready to show me a bunch of equally thoughtful comments you’ve posted over the years on Catholic blogs, Richard Dawkins’ website, Jewish, gay, Muslim, monster truck lover blogs, and so on?

And, He also taught that “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”

And Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.



JoePeaceman said...

Sort of but actually, the evidence indicates that BofM peoples are a mixture of immigrants, some of unknown origins who came thousands of years ago on 8 barges. These early immigrants may have encountered even earlier immigrants, who had passed the vast open spaces of what are now Russia, China, etc and, as implausible fn1 as it seems, walked over a huge ice sheet into the unknown.
Some members of the later group had a line of kings descended from a person whose name was translated as Jared. They developed a high culture, which may have had break offs, mingled/interacted with other cultures, and so on.

Fn1 “Postglacial Viability and colonization in North America’s ice-free corridor Mikkel W. Pedersen, Anthony Ruter, Charles Schweger, Harvey Friebe, Richard A. Staff, Kristian K. Kjeldsen, Marie L. Z. Mendoza, Alwynne B. Beaudoin, Cynthia Zutter, Nicolaj K. Larsen, Ben A. Potter, Rasmus Nielsen, Rebecca A. Rainville, Ludovic Orlando, David J. Meltzer, Kurt H. Kjær & Eske Willerslev "The study, published in the journal Nature, refutes the theory that humans first populated North America by way of a land bridge that once connected Siberia to Alaska. The studies findings assert the land bridge would not have been “biologically viable” for humans to cross until hundreds of years after humans were known to arrive. Basically, the land bridge did not have the necessities of life to sustain anyone trying to travel across it ...”

Bering Strait Theory, Pt. 1: How Dogma Trumped Science
Alexander Ewen • June 13, 2014
The discovery and examination of the ancient Mexican skeleton, Naia, has led scientists to once again rethink the origins of American Indians. ...the broader context is usually the Bering Strait Theory, ...Among scientists (and anti-Mormon populations : ) Joe quote), this theory appears unshakable, despite the lack of scientific evidence to support it. Indeed, a host of scientific evidence, from linguistics to genetics, does not support the theory.
RELATED: New Discovery Confirms Native American Views on Their Ancestry
RELATED: How Linguists Are Pulling Apart the Bering Strait Theory
... modern Indians, mitochondrial DNA extracted from the skeleton’s wisdom tooth found it belonged to haplogroup D, the same as the Anzick child, and found in about 11 percent of living American Indians. The paper ascribes the differences in appearance between the ancient skeleton and modern Indians as the result of evolution…….Owsley is steadfast in his belief, based on physical features, that Kennewick Man is not genetically linked to the tribes who wish to rebury him.

...the “Beringian Standstill theory,” the idea the Paleoindians made a 10,000 year long pit stop in the region of the Bering Strait, is highly controversial. There are a number of new studies that cast doubt on that hypothesis. The Beringian Standstill theory is in itself an attempt to reconcile conflicting evidence in an effort to prop up the Bering Strait theory, long a source of contention between scientists and Indians.
RELATED: More Reasons to Doubt the Bering Strait Migration Theory…”





JoePeaceman said...

Thousands of years later some other groups immigrated, at least two were from the area of Jerusalem. The majority of these are from unknown genetic origins (technically all but…). Some members of this second Middle Eastern group were descended from a couple whom we’ll call “Joseph” and “Asenath.” Joseph was descended from many couples, including Abraham (remember Abraham anyone?, from the Northern Ur or? :)). The exact nature of their DNA is unknown. Asenath is often labeled an “Asiatic”, even less is known about her ancestry. One of these was named “Lehi”. We don’t know who all donated DNA during the generations separating Joseph/Asenath from Lehi, who lived in Jerusalem circa 600BC. 600BC was a time when Baal worship and other paganisms were back in vogue. Lehi gathered a group (including some who were possibly not Israelite) and lived in the desert/wilderness for maybe 8 years and likely interacted with others (stopped in a place translated as “Nahom”, and Bountiful, etc. and gave details of these unknown places and the paths leading to them). It is apparent that most of the so called “Lehite” group were likely following along with the mainstream culture of their milieu (as are most anonymous people in our times ; ))- for them, this was a form of Baal worship.
They sailed to the American Continent, and at first lived somewhere south of the main body of so called “Jaredites”. Critics like to assume that they interacted with none of the ancient peoples in the Americas. They argue this because the record keepers only directly mention one interaction, but indirectly mention others. These groups clearly had traditions of not mentioning or naming individuals and peoples who weren't key to the story they were trying to tell (for examples: Moriancumr played a key role in leading the Jaredites to the Americas, but he was only referred to as “the brother of Jared”, probably because his children refused kingship; Nephi’s wife’s name isn’t given at all, nor the lineage of the kings who replaced him; it is implied that Ishmael’s daughters in law were other peoples, but we don’t really know for sure; etc.)
In the Americas the “Lehites” broke up, moved, interacted, joined with others, and so on. They give a clear geography which miraculously matches with Mesoamerica (and in ways that JS couldn’t have known).
The smallest group of these later immigrants continued to think of themselves as “Jews” of Isrealites, if only because that is where they originated.
I have all of the evidence that I need that this is real and that is information directly from an eyewitness.I call Him God. There are other evidences which interest me, but can’t make or break my knowledge of Christ. That appears to be how God wants it for now.
What we find today is that there is a DNA relationship between Semitic peoples and some Native Americans.Fn2. There is also a clear cultural/symbolic/religious connection Fn3.



I’ll try to get fn2 tonight, you’ll have to wait on fn3 :) but I’m sure you’ll be every bit as open minded as with everything else :).











JoePeaceman said...

Dr. Judith Habicht-Mauch says: "We don't know how people got to the New World, when, or who they were, Those questions are very much up for grabs right now and very controversial"

Owsley says: "The whole model for the peopling of the Americas is in flux, it's up in the air."
As Jeff mentioned—
National Geographic Nov. 2013

"Great Surprise"—Native Americans Have West Eurasian Origins “...DNA from the remains revealed genes found today in western Eurasians in the Middle East and Europe, as well as other aspects unique to Native Americans, but no evidence of any relation to modern East Asians. ..Why is it important? Prevailing theories suggest that Native Americans are descended from a group of East Asians who crossed the Bering Sea via a land bridge perhaps 16,500…This study changes this idea because it shows that a significant minority of Native American ancestry actually derives not from East Asia but from a people related to present-day western Eurasians," Willerslev said. "It's approximately one-third of the genome, and that is a lot," he added. "So in that regard I think it's changing quite a bit of the history."”

"The research team led by David Reich of Harvard Medical School and Dr. Andres Ruiz-Linares of University College London recently concluded that: “They cannot date the migration from their genomic data..”

Also “new genome study finds..second and third waves mixed in with the first.”

And: “If the genetics of the early migrations to the samples of Na-Dene and (Siberian) Ket DNA did not match… inconclusive.”


Q-P36 founding lineage among Ashkenazi Jewish populations, Iranian and Iraqi Jews, and is a founding lineage group present in 31% of self-identified Native Americans, also found in Yemenite Jews. D Garrigan, ME Kaplan, et al MF Hammer, AJ Wood, ET Wood, et al VF Chamberlain, VF Kearney








Also, in this 2009 study by: Perez, Bernal, Paula N. Gonzalez, Marina Sardi, Gustavo G. Politis they discuss that: “one of the major debates about the American peopling focuses on the number of populations..craniometric variation in American human remains…a generalized morphology. ..worldwide populations…aborigines do not present the typical morphology of North East Asia… Specifically, “the American groups are more apt to join Europeans than Asiatics”.. South American groups have not specific mongoloid craniofacial traits.

&Perez & Co. in discussing that Native Americans do not have Asian morphology, explained that “.. low values of genetic exchange between local and “invading” populations can result in a major contribution of local neutral genes into the invader gene pool, and almost exclusively in this direction.” What this means is, when Lehi did come to America, even a few interactions (& the BofM describes millions of people here before Lehi came) & even a FEW interactions would result in the new arrivals (Lehites) absorbing local population DNA, but still DNA shows that Levites, Jews, & Native Americans are related.

Research is often “ignored” and finds are “totally omitted from lists.”

JoePeaceman said...

Dienekes (2004) also wrote that he found the continued silence of researchers about the presence of haplogroup Q among Ashkenazim “puzzling.”

R-M173& is the most common haplogroup after the various Q-M242 in Native Americans (Malhi 2008)
Haplogroup R-M173 found in the Near East and Native Americans Low frequencies in Siberia Kayser

Haplogroup R-M17..elevated levels..Israeli..Behar reported R-M17..in ..Levites 52% Passarino G, Semino O & Magri C et al.

Q-M242…found in approximately 94% of South America Bortolini, M&co. in Na-Dene..50%, and North American..46% Salzano, F&co.

Q-M242 men in Jewish Diaspora populations belong. Adams, Bosch&co.

In conclusion, it appears that some members of three very distinct populations—Scandinavian-Shetlanders, Native Americans and Ashkenazi Jews–may share common ancestors…(Zegura et al. 2004).
Haplogroup R1 (Y-DNA) is the second most predominant Y haplotype found among indigenous Amerindians after Q (Y-DNA). González Burchard,& CO.
subsequent research has confirmed that R1a1 alone comprises nearly 12% of the Ashkenazi gene pool, it now appears that Behar’s estimate is much too low. Additionally, Behar’s (2004b, Supplementary Material) own data indicate that haplogroups R1b, R1a and I comprise more than a quarter of Ashkenazi DNA results. (50% of Levite)
Native American DNA: 3 types n C-M217
Q-M242
R1“R1- The origins of R-M173 remain unclear”

This relative absence of haplogroup X2 in Asia is one of the major factors causing the current rethinking of the peopling of the Americas..very beginning of their expansion and spread from the Near East Am J Hum Gene&co.






Also, in this 2009 study by: Perez, Bernal, Paula N. Gonzalez, Marina Sardi, Gustavo G. Politis they discuss that: “one of the major debates about the American peopling focuses on the number of populations..craniometric variation in American human remains…a generalized morphology. ..worldwide populations…aborigines do not present the typical morphology of North East Asia… Specifically, “the American groups are more apt to join Europeans than Asiatics”.. South American groups have not specific mongoloid craniofacial traits.

&Perez & Co. in discussing that Native Americans do not have Asian morphology, explained that “.. low values of genetic exchange between local and “invading” populations can result in a major contribution of local neutral genes into the invader gene pool, and almost exclusively in this direction.” What this means is, when Lehi did come to America, even a few interactions (& the BofM describes millions of people here before Lehi came) & even a FEW interactions would result in the new arrivals (Lehites) absorbing local population DNA, but still DNA shows that Levites, Jews, & Native Americans are related.

Research is often “ignored” and finds are “totally omitted from lists.”

Faith in footprints across Beringia requires (from current scholars) belief that Americans aren’t or are related to East Asians, that ALL PCR tests show contamination, Polynesians settled America but have identical DNA, or not, one percent of modern American tribal members have genetic patterns matching prehistoric samples. Ancient East Asians, who didn’t look East Asian, and had “strikingly different genetic patterns” came to America “possibly even by boat” and evolved Asian features after thousands of years in America, thus matching place of origin, or not, since there were no mongoloid East Asians then anyway, and 2500 years ago (shortly after scattering of Israel) the Chinese still had European haplogroups, 2000 YBP Chinese haplogroups shared 13% with Native Americans, now, Turkic and Mongolian Central Asians (North Countries where LDS say some “lost” Israelites went) share about 45%, and yet 52% of the largest “founding” Jewish Levite populations have the Native American marker Q-P36.

Anonymous said...

Joe 10:16 - Not sure what you are asking. I think your stating, that the answer to your question makes you uncomfortable, it was not the answer you were hoping for, and you do not know how to resolve your discomfort. No one on my monster truck or other blogs has ever asked such unthoughtful questions or been so silly to serve up such softball pitches. Also, you forgot to show us your "thoughtful" comments on other blogs.

Anonymous said...

Joe 10:16 - Not sure what you are asking. I think your stating, that the answer to your question makes you uncomfortable, it was not the answer you were hoping for, and you do not know how to resolve your discomfort. No one on my monster truck or other blogs has ever asked such unthoughtful questions or been so silly to serve up such softball pitches. Also, you forgot to show us your "thoughtful" comments on other blogs.

Anonymous said...

Not much time right now to completely analyze your data dump. Initial query was to the credentials of a couple of your cited sources:

Judith Habicht-Mauch -- Anthropologist whose specialty is Native American pottery

Alexander Ewen -- Native American reporter

Not looking promising so far. I'll dig into more of what you've presented above. It has definitely piqued my curiosity.

JoePeaceman said...

Sorry, not-ok, I thought you were finally answering some of my questions and were thinking about what you’re doing here on Mormanity, a blog for people interested in the Church of Jesus Christ. I was trying to see the best and was hinting that you probably call all sinners to repentance equally : ). If it’s only a certain religious minority group that doesn’t make you look so good :). Still luv ya though.

JoePeaceman said...


Ok/not-ok, no need to put a lot of time into it. They can’t be credible and also approach truth, that’s the same as disagreeing with you ; ).

Anonymous said...

Joe 1:34 - Which Anon is calling sinners to repentance here?

JoePeaceman said...


Thought it was not-ok but maybe ok : )

Quick fn3-- Israelite/Baal syncretism and primary American themes share everything FROM: Mother- divided into heavenly and earthy, associated with or source of life/death tree; primordial hill/skull/temple, womb/tomb, throne, serpent, sacred river imitating heavenly Milky Way (crocodiles in both (Tiamat (Biblical Tehom/Leviathan), Eve, 2nd Eve (Maryamm) flowing with waters healing the filthy river (ME Dead Sea, Maya watery caves opening up to the underworld) etc- TO details like king/Adam head in or below the world tree; foreskin blood incense offerings; halting snake/rain dances calling upon cloud riding storm-Baal; cyclically dying hibernating (Elijah says sleepeth) god/king sun etc, ascending 3 levels (“Celestial, Terrestrial” and Underworld per Schele, probably not credible for u though ;)) of pyramid/primordial cracked-skull hills upon cave to Otherworld through/as tree; imitative rites; ritual fertility (Critics argue Lamanite Itzabel (extant Mesoamerican place) was JS blunder, we now know it means Baal harlot, like Jezebel (Sidon Baalism); foliated temple aprons for deification of king (unless your Benjamin, doesn’t want us thinking he’s more than a man…it’s all in the next life) and lifting the cosmic tree/cross/crocodile mother/father sky/milky-way source of life water, and much much more…..

And, below are some of my favorite BofM evidences. I have sufficient. It’s personal, but interesting that y’all are here trying to sow seeds of doubt on that, especially when you know that the Church does so much good. I’m happy, and rejoice, and am eternally sealed, why try to lead from that or destroy? I doubt any of you really think about why you are here, and will simply make excuses, or maybe repeat something about what God told Joseph about the creeds, or that I somehow otherwise hurt you with my faith, etc.

1-millions of humans verifying Alma32 science; 2- anti-scholar BofM attacks fail 100% of honest examination including: metals; morphology; the undeniable, detailed relationship between Native and Middle Eastern religions (including thousands of things ranging from things mentioned above; swords; names: Alma, Laman, etc. (maybe a 100?)); precise geography; located places (and it’s not just Nahom anymore); arrival by sea; reformed Egyptian; liahona culture; steel; Shule in Pacal’s ancestry; River Laman; silk; sheep; elephants; glass in Jared’s day; breathers in barges (not rolling); Sidon; volcanos @33AD; witnesses; roads cast "up", etc etc etc), clapping; customs, it goes on and on....


And now, I’m moving back to Abraham, try to stay focused : ) luv ya

Anonymous said...

It is not why you believe what believe that is interesting, it is why you do not believe what you do not believe that is interesting.

Anonymous said...

I’m going to start a series of responses here to try to address your disjointed posts. There seems to be no organization or theme to them—quotes are just thrown out willy-nilly. In looking into the sources you have presented (thanks for not citing them—another indication of your organization and believability) I have found that you, like Hugh Nibley before you, have taken liberties with the information and twisted your sources to fit your agenda.

Let’s start with your 10:22 post. You conflate Book of Mormon history with quotes saying that Beringia migration isn’t likely correct. Many other articles you have cited disagree with this assertion, including those citing skeletal as well as pollen research that shows it is likely how the population of the Americas occurred. I’m also not sure why that is important as in later posts you claim that the area was already populated when Legi and his family arrived.

You also mentioned the Naia skeleton. For a better discussion of her discovery and how it fits into The peopling of the Americas, see the great Nova episode about her at https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/first-face-of-america/

The transcript is also available there. I recommend the video because it contains footage of Eske Willerslev who is the preeminent expert on ancient genomes and is Arnold Schwarzenegger’s vocal doppelgänger. I keep expecting him to say “Get to duh choppah!”

Anonymous said...

This is all speculation on your part. You’re the first person I have ever heard who makes the claim that the purported Christian Israelites of the BoM brought pagan Baal worship with them to the new world. Interesting that Baal is mentioned in the Bible quite a lot but never in the BoM.

Anonymous said...

Your 10:45 post contains the most abuse of relevant information of all.

David Reich’s study, which you cited third hand, and which can be found here https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/2012_Nature_NativeAmericans_0.pdf ,
opens with this introduction: “The settlement of the Americas occurred at least 15,000 years ago through Beringia, a land bridge between Asia and America that existed during the ice ages.”

It also contains this paragraph: “We show that the initial peopling followed a southward expansion facilitated by the coast, with sequential population splits and little gene flow after divergence, especially in South America.”

This study shows genetically how there was a three-phase expansion into the new world, as you claim, but all coming from the Beringia region (and actually some regression back into Siberia). This three-phase expansion also would have occurred thousands of years before the events of the BoM.

You provide more quotes about haplogroup Q in subsequent posts, so I will address that info there. Research isn’t being ignored, it is being misunderstood and misinterpreted by you.

Anonymous said...

Your 10:48 post also contains some egregious misrepresentations of information.

One of the quotes you share that sounds like it makes a real connection to early Americans and Israelites (found here https://www.jogg.info/pages/11/coffman.htm) states that “in conclusion, it appears that some members of three very distinct populations—Scandinavian-Shetlanders, Native Americans and Ashkenazi Jews–may share common ancestors…(Zegura et al. 2004).” What you failed to share is the remainder of the sentence “originating from the Altai regions of southern Siberia.”

The context of the above discussion about haplogroup Q in the article is as follows:

“Haplogroup Q is found in high frequencies in only a few regions of the world.  Native American’s possess very high percentages of Q, particularly a sub-group known as “Q3” (Zegura et al. 2004).  But haplogroup Q did not originate among the Native Americans, nor did this population obtain their Q ancestry from Jewish or Scandinavian ancestors.  As previously noted by Faux, its origins probably lie somewhere in northern Eurasia, in Siberia or the Altai, where Q continues to be a common Y chromosome haplogroup.  It is from this group after migration to the New World that Native American Haplogroup Q3 originated. 

Genetic analysis has allowed researchers to trace Native American haplogroup Q to its probable ancestral homeland – the Altai Mountains of Southwest Siberia.”

Anonymous said...

Joe,

One last area of confusion I have is your claim that there were “still millions of people related to the Jaredite immigrants” and “the BofM describes millions of people here before Lehi came.” Did I read it wrong or doesn’t the BoM account of the Jaredites end with their complete destruction? The only vestiges found are armor, bones, and 24 gold plates containing their record (which they couldn’t read because of language issues). Where does the book mention other people already inhabiting the land when the arrived? This claim is contrary to the claim that it was a promised land reserved only for the righteous. When they arrived, Nephi describes all of the things they found. One thing is conspicuously absent—know what it is? Other people. . .

25 And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.

Anonymous said...

“interesting that y’all are here trying to sow seeds of doubt on that, especially when you know that the Church does so much good”

It’s telling that you believe that good and belief in the church are inextricably tied together. Disagreeing with the church doesn’t make one automatically bad or evil, just as believing in it doesn’t make one automatically good.

JoePeaceman said...

Anon, just going through emails and noticed you spent some time actually looking into something, kudos. : ) I hope this means you love me too and that we can be friends. I’m willing to take time away from my wife and children to discuss this but, given my extremely busy work/home schedule, I will set some rules and explain some things first. This is to reduce the risk of wasting time conversing with someone who really isn’t interested in understanding, as I have in the past.

Not necessarily in order of importance-
Rules:
1- pick a name. I’ve received threats so I understand not using your real name, but have the courage to identify yourself and stand by your statements.
2- explain honestly why you are here, what your background is, and what you believe, at LEAST about the topics discussed. I’ve wasted time conversing with people whose only conviction is “Mormons Bad”. Their point of view will flow to anything and everything because they don’t have anything to build it on.
3- dont’ waste time trying to distract or accuse me of things that aren’t relevant to your thesis.
4- try to remember that I grew up in the hood, and gained a healthy disrespect for haters and, more importantly, for authority and conformity (don’t waste our time going there, you don’t know me ; )). “Healthy”, for me, includes keeping an open mind, not being afraid to question, not running away from what I already know just because someone with a degree disagreed with me, etc. (in other words, e.g. please spare us the “geneticists disagree” argument because: a. Not all do b. Based on what data and world view? c. Einstein had 100 experts against him but dared disagree and found something. D. etc. : ) (gotta love etc.)

5- please don’t imply that there’s no sense conversing if I’m just gong to disagree with everything. If you can personally present proving evidence from authorities OR anyone (<that’s my point), I will accept it.

6- please don’t expect me to read a bunch of links, books, etc. If YOU can’t tell me how they support your argument, then they don’t really support your argument.

6- please remember that I’m here to learn about the BofA, and might occasionally focus.
You should try that sometime ; ).

I’ll change the rules as i see fit for my “agenda.”
Jk, but these aren’t rock solid, I’m flexible for you, good buddy anon who actually read something said by a Mormon and tried to have an open mind.... ;).












JoePeaceman said...

Or, is it speculation on your part that it’s all speculation on my part? Remember, that it doesn’t matter to me if no one else agrees, I go with evidence. :).

I’ll begin in good faith, but expect to see a signed agreement : ), not gonna waste time if you’re going to skip away and continuing with the same….that’s deception.

YOU SAID- “This is all speculation on your part. You’re the first person I have ever heard who makes the claim that the purported Christian Israelites of the BoM brought pagan Baal worship with them to the new world. Interesting that Baal is mentioned in the Bible quite a lot but never in the BoM.”

I REPLY- Not sure what your claim is but every thesis involves some speculation. I make the claim based on evidence, tho.

For examples (if I neglected to mention these): there is evidence that, in 600BC Jerusalem, some Jews and Josephites were involved in a form of paganism that could be called Baal worship. When I know more about you, I won’t have to assume that you have read Jerimiah or the BofM, etc. If you remember, in the BofM, Nephi has a conversation with his brothers about the righteousness of the “Jews” (apparently Nephi views himself as an adopted Jew, although of Joseph) and the people who originally inhabited the land before they immigrated to that promised land. It seems that Laman argues they were keeping the law of moses. The Bible lets us know that they were involved in human sacrifice and other things related to Baal worship.
The evidence indicates that Laman or his descendents continued in the belief that these things were in keeping with the law of moses or at least that they were how they wanted to worship.





JoePeaceman said...

This might help us focus :)

MY evidence based beliefs. or my
THESIS/“agenda” or my claims:

1- The BofM is true and you can’t prove it’s false.

2- THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NATIVE AMERICANS AND PEOPLES OF THE MIDDLE EAST,
2-a. evidence for this includes a RELIGIOUS/CULTURAL/SYMBOLISM relationship.

Do you agree or disagree with 2-a? Why?

2-b. this is evidence is supportive of an Historical BofM
Do you agree or disagree with 2-b? Why?



3- THERE IS A DNA RELATIONSHIP connecting peoples originating in the Middle East and Native Americans.
Do you agree or disagree? Why?

3-a. DNA, or disagreement among “Geneticists” scholars, Jeff (if he really did) etc. can’t prove that the BofM is false.

Agree or disagree? Why?

3-b. Said DNA relationship is more supportive of the BofM than not.
Agree, or disagree? Why?




JoePeaceman said...


While I wait for your thoughtful responses I’ll read through your other stuff, and may comment occasionally to hurry things along :)-

YOU SAID- “Let’s start with your 10:22 post. You conflate Book of Mormon history with quotes saying that Beringia migration isn’t likely correct.”

I REPLY- Just trying to open your mind. The BEringia theory was invented in the 19th Century, possibly by your man Ethan Smith (if you’re anti-Mormon he’s your BofM author, right?). There is some evidence that it isn’t correct. I believe people were in the Americas before Moriancumr. I’m willing to change my mind about that. It doesn’t make a big difference for the BofM if they were or weren’t OR how they got here.


YOU SAID- “Many other articles you have cited disagree with this assertion, including those citing skeletal as well as pollen research that shows it is likely how the population of the Americas occurred. I’m also not sure why that is important as in later posts you claim that the area was already populated when Legi and his family arrived. “

I REPLY- Not important, but the fact that there is disagreement and that very few things are really set in stone is important. Don’t be afraid to think for yourself. They’re trying to prove a 19th Century theory. I still disagree with the idea that DNA can definitively prove a migration route. I don’t know how “skeletal as well as pollen research” can show the path. Especially not the path of ALL immigrants. Please explain and also give some links and I’ll look when I can.



YOU SAID- “You also mentioned the Naia skeleton. For a better discussion of her discovery and how it fits into The peopling of the Americas, see the great Nova episode about her at

I REPLY- Thanks, sounds very interesting, I’ll try to look into it. Does it show that anything about my thesis is false? Or is it just interesting? I appreciate interesting :).

JoePeaceman said...

I’ve been trying to do this on my phone, from emails, but the order seems different when I “reply.” Going back to old school, takes too long on my phone : ), OR, since we’re friends now, can you help me see how to do “reply” on my computer?

YOU SAID- “There seems to be no organization or theme to them—”

I REPLY- not sure what your argument is yet (or how this helps anyone) but, reading between the lines, you will see that those were from a conversation I had years ago. Words were limited. My kind and thoughtful comments were removed and I, generally speaking, gave up on conversing with critics.


“quotes are just thrown out willy-nilly. In looking into the sources you have presented (thanks for not citing them—another indication of your organization and believability) I have found that you, like Hugh Nibley before you, have taken liberties with the information and twisted your sources to fit your agenda.


I REPLY- Thanks, but doubt I’ll ever approach Nibley’s genius for getting to points that most people don't understand.

Anonymous said...

Response to 1:35 post

1). I can and have. Its claims are ridiculous and are not born out by physical evidence. The best evidence for your claims is the way you feel about them. Feelings and reality are often at odds.

2). What relationship? Have you actually studied the polytheistic religions of Ancient America?
2a) Use of symbols and symbolism are human behaviors. We all seek to find meaning in the world around us—we want explanations for why things are. Before we had science, we turned to religion for these explanations. Just because disparate civilizations found similar religious significance in certain items does not indicate that one came from the other—merely that they are human and think like humans. Correlation does not mean causation.

2b). Not sure what evidence you are referring to.

3). Yes, to a point. There was a relationship shown between Ashkenazi Jews (European, not Middle Eastern Jews) and Native Americans. But that relationship (genetic) was formed thousands of years before the BoM and not in America. The research you presented made this explicitly clear.

3a) Agreement or disagreement among geneticists exits outside the discussion of the truth of the BoM. Though they may not agree 100% on the timeframe, none of the theories include a family of Israelites sailing across the ocean. The research cannot prove the BoM false because that is not its purpose. It also doesn’t disprove the idea that aliens had human slave labor build the pyramids in the Americas and Egypt. That doesn’t mean it actually happened. The preponderance of evidence based on genetic research does not support the idea of the BoM.

3b). See 3a above. I would also reiterate that DNA evidence points to a migration that occurred thousands of years before the events of the BoM.

JoePeaceman said...

YOU SAID- Your 10:45 post contains the most abuse of relevant information of all.
David Reich’s study, which you cited third hand, and which can be found here”

I REPLY- is hand relevant? : ) just askin….. I feel that the important part is “They cannot date the migration from their genomic data but accept the estimate by others that the migration occurred around 15,000 years ago. This was in the window of time that occurred after the melting of great glaciers that blocked passage from Siberia to Alaska, and before the rising waters at the end of the last ice age submerged Beringia, the land bridge between them.”

It could be that they are going on the evidence that they have, and so “accept the estimate by others” because that’s when the ice melted. Apparently they haven’t yet read the BofM or studied the evidence for other ways to get to the America... : )


Your link didn’t work, I googled and found this, which I believe is the original study:
“ Reconstructing Native American population history”

Which actually (if you wanna play that way ;), just showing that I can, but don’t generally) begins with an abstract which says:
“The peopling of the Americas has been the subject of extensive genetic, archaeological and linguistic research; however, central questions remain unresolved. One contentious issue is whether the settlement occurred by means of a single migration or multiple streams of migration from Siberia 9–15. The pattern of dispersals within the Americas is also poorly understood.”

Not everyone knows everything about everything. That’s not required for real jobs, only for anti-mormonism. ; ) We really don't need to waste time on if ANYONE came over the ice etc., (some Hopi, for example, believe that those who came across the ice, rather than by water, weren't brought by the Creator). As we shall see if we continue, I have no evidence that leads me to believe that the “migration from Siberia” claim is much more than an established theory that they “accept” based on “the estimate by others” or, even, the assumptions of others but STILL, I tend to believe that people were here when BofM people arrived and my thesis isn’t directly affected by it.

JoePeaceman said...

You could help SPEED THINGS UP by answering these questions after we discuss those above (I noticed your response after a refresh but wanted to finish that one before reading our responses, which are sure to be better than Christmas):

Could Nephi have come by boat?

I assume that you agree that Reich and Co. (about 100 scholars) ”cannot date the migration from their genomic data” , but do you feel that you can?

How does that relate to the BofM?

YOU SAY- “opens with this introduction: “The settlement of the Americas occurred at least 15,000 years ago through Beringia, a land bridge between Asia and America that existed during the ice ages.””
It may sound like that is a fact, and they do try to sound that way in these things, but Reich explained that this is not fact and, in fact “They cannot date the migration from their genomic data but accept the estimate by others that the migration occurred around 15,000 years ago.” It’s establishment accepted but on what data? Here again, I think people may have come here or even have been here already (as you have seen that some Native Americans argue). This doesn’t change the historical value of the BofM.

YOU SAID- It also contains this paragraph: “We show that the initial peopling followed a southward expansion….”
I REPLY- and I could show you leading non-LDS scholars who disagree. Doesn’t matter how the first settlers came though.

YOU SAY- “This study shows genetically how there was a three-phase expansion into the new world, as you claim, but all coming from the Beringia region (and actually some regression back into Siberia).”

I REPLY- I don’t have time to reread the entire study but, if you can explain how the study proves that all Native Americans were “all coming from the Beringia region” then I’ll read the relevant information. Unless that isn’t what you are claiming….
The article I quoted also says “If the genetics of the early migrations to the Americas can be defined well enough, it should in principle be possible to match them with their source populations in Asia….Dr. Reich said there was not yet enough genomic data from Asia or the Americas to make these links. His samples of Na-Dene and Ket DNA did not match, but the few Ket samples he had may have become mixed with DNA from people of other ethnicities, so the test, in his view, was inconclusive.”

YOU SAY- “This three-phase expansion also would have occurred thousands of years before the events of the BoM.”
I REPLY- so you have dated the migration of all Native Americans from genomic data? Or is it something else? And, if we could date even some, how could we prove that Nephi didn’t come 2600 YBP? Or is that what you are implying?


YOU SAY- “You provide more quotes about haplogroup Q in subsequent posts, so I will address that info there. Research isn’t being ignored, it is being misunderstood and misinterpreted by you.”

I REPLY- you’ll have to take that up with the experts : ). For one example, in “Getting the Scoop on Pre-Clovis Poop - The Investigations Continue” Mary Harrsch argues that “...Cinq-Mars research was ignored by mainstream anthropologists so he was unable to obtain funding...I was actually surprised that so many Canadian finds appear to have been totally omitted from lists..” and “...The multivariate analyses show that they exhibit strong morphological affinities with present day Australians and Africans, showing no resemblance to recent Northern Asians and Native Americans. These findings confirm our long held opinion that the settlement of the Americas was more complicated in terms of biological input than has been widely assumed. The working hypothesis is that two very distinct populations entered the New World by the end of the Pleistocene...”

The last part was just from skimming, I read the article when it came out but haven’t reviewed, so you can feel free to find what you can that you think proves your point : ). My point is that no one on earth knows everything, not even you.

JoePeaceman said...

Looks like we’re having a live conversation between friends : ), cool. I was typing and didn’t refresh.
It’s interesting that you spend your Sunday afternoons on this...maybe there will be clues as to why in your responses.

MY evidence based beliefs. or my THESIS/“agenda”

1- The BofM is true and you can’t prove it’s false.

YOU SAY
1). I can and have.
I REPLY- send it : ). I was planning to work in reverse, so might be best to wait but, after finishing with the symbolic relationship, DNA etc. please start with a single thesis, or is this it?>> “Its claims are ridiculous and are not born out by physical evidence.” I can dismiss that just as easily as the next guy, your “claims are ridiculous and are not born out by physical evidence” and we would get really far with this ; ).
Focus please.

YOU SAY The best evidence for your claims is the way you feel about them.

I REPLY- on what evidence do you base this claim? We could discuss the reality of feelings, if you had any HaHa, : ) just kidding…. If you answer these questions it will help us move back to the thesis more quickly.

How do you know murder is bad (I’m assuming you know)?
What are some differences between seeing, reading and believing a study, and feeling the study is logically correct?
If you stuck your tongue on a hot stove, would you know if the pain was real and true?

YOU SAY- “Feelings and reality are often at odds.”
I REPLY- doesn’t matter for my knowledge of the BofM, and doesn’t mean they always are. Perhaps you are where you are because you can’t tell the difference between feelings that are true and those that are figments of your conscience trying to justify something?

Just wondering... could be, what do you think?

JoePeaceman said...


2- THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NATIVE AMERICANS AND PEOPLES OF THE MIDDLE EAST,

YOU SAY- 2). What relationship? Have you actually studied the polytheistic religions of Ancient America?
I REPLY- yes, and I mentioned a few things above…. : ( -- this hurts my feelings, I thought you were actually focused for a minute there….


I PROPOSE- 2-a. evidence for this includes a RELIGIOUS/CULTURAL/SYMBOLISM relationship.

Do you agree or disagree with 2-a? Why?

YOU REPLY- all chance….; ),, just like Nahom, turn a blind eye and it goes away : ) teasing. Still love ya.

YOU ACTUALLY REPLY- 2a) Use of symbols and symbolism are human behaviors. We all seek to find meaning in the world around us—we want explanations for why things are. Before we had science, we turned to religion for these explanations. Just because disparate civilizations found similar religious significance in certain items does not indicate that one came from the other—merely that they are human and think like humans. Correlation does not mean causation.”
I REPLY- great out : ). You should be a professional critic, there is money to be made. Or maybe a running back…. Was that a “NO?”
And is your response to “why?” sorta “even if we found an ancient American burial with a cross and a person nailed to it, that’s just Native Americans seeking to find meaning. And, even if they added a woman, and a tomb, and a dove, and etc. etc. still no relationship!”
I’m sensing that you’re mind is not open to reality and we might be wasting time….. I’ll read more, but my hopes are largely dashed.

I SAID- 2-b. this evidence is supportive of an Historical BofM

YOU REPLY- 2b). Not sure what evidence you are referring to.
I REPEAT- “a RELIGIOUS/CULTURAL/SYMBOLISM relationship” (among other things), and I will copy my post above to make it easier to dismiss without thinking or effort : )

I SAID- Do you agree or disagree with 2-b? Why?
YOU SAID- ?? zzzzz.

JoePeaceman said...



I SAID- 3- THERE IS A DNA RELATIONSHIP connecting peoples originating in the Middle East and Native Americans.
Do you agree or disagree? Why?
YOU REPLY- 3). Yes, to a point.” (YAY! Big step in the right direction) “There was a relationship shown between Ashkenazi Jews (European, not Middle Eastern Jews) and Native Americans. But that relationship (genetic) was formed thousands of years before the BoM and not in America. The research you presented made this explicitly clear.”
I REPLY- Ohhhh, sad, only baby steps….seems you assume much. Last I checked Middle Eastern Jews were included. More importantly, Lehi’s relationship to Jews and Native Americans would naturally go back to before BofM times and maybe ten+ thousand years before. The information I supplied showed something else. I think we find what would be expected but nto sure if it will help to discuss… let’s move on and I might return if there’s any hope at all of you considering evidence that doesn’t fit your agenda ; ). You quote.

I SAID- 3-a. DNA, or disagreement among “Geneticists” scholars, Jeff (if he really did) etc. can’t prove that the BofM false.
Agree or disagree? Why?
YOU REPLY- 3a) Agreement or disagreement among geneticists exits outside the discussion of the truth of the BoM. Though they may not agree 100% on the timeframe, none of the theories include a family of Israelites sailing across the ocean. The research cannot prove the BoM false because that is not its purpose. It also doesn’t disprove the idea that aliens had human slave labor build the pyramids in the Americas and Egypt. That doesn’t mean it actually happened. The preponderance of evidence based on genetic research does not support the idea of the BoM.

I REPLY- is that agree? This might be another step…. Hmmm. So, would you say that DNA is not valid evidence against the BofM?
That’s cool. We can move on to symbolism, but I’ll probably continue with 3-b as you show good faith by putting a bit more effort into the RELIGIOUS/CULTURAL/SYMBOLISM relationship.

I SAID- 3-b. Said DNA relationship is more supportive of the BofM than not.
Agree, or disagree? Why?
YOU REPLY- 3b). See 3a above. I would also reiterate that DNA evidence points to a migration that occurred thousands of years before the events of the BoM.

I REPLY- Not really an answer (“yes” or “no” would have been much more clear and courageous) but I agree that people migrated thousands of years before Nephi, and probably even before Jared, etc. I base my belief on the dating of artifacts and so on,even though that’s not an exact science either, but we can agree here. Might not be breakfast at tiffany’s but it’s a start. : ) : )



Time for my family, I'll return in a few days, after repeating this, since you missed it--

JoePeaceman said...

Quick fn3-- Israelite/Baal syncretism and primary American themes share everything FROM: Mother- divided into heavenly and earthy, associated with or source of life/death tree; primordial hill/skull/temple, womb/tomb, throne, serpent, sacred river imitating heavenly Milky Way (crocodiles in both (Tiamat (Biblical Tehom/Leviathan), Eve, 2nd Eve (Maryamm) flowing with waters healing the filthy river (ME Dead Sea, Maya watery caves opening up to the underworld) etc- TO details like king/Adam head in or below the world tree; foreskin blood incense offerings; halting snake/rain dances calling upon cloud riding storm-Baal; cyclically dying hibernating (Elijah says sleepeth) god/king sun etc, ascending 3 levels (“Celestial, Terrestrial” and Underworld per Schele, probably not credible for u though ;)) of pyramid/primordial cracked-skull hills upon cave to Otherworld through/as tree; imitative rites; ritual fertility (Critics argue Lamanite Itzabel (extant Mesoamerican place) was JS blunder, we now know it means Baal harlot, like Jezebel (Sidon Baalism); foliated temple aprons for deification of king (unless your Benjamin, doesn’t want us thinking he’s more than a man…it’s all in the next life) and lifting the cosmic tree/cross/crocodile mother/father sky/milky-way source of life water, and much much more…..

And, below are some of my favorite BofM evidences. I have sufficient. It’s personal, but interesting that y’all are here trying to sow seeds of doubt on that, especially when you know that the Church does so much good. I’m happy, and rejoice, and am eternally sealed, why try to lead from that or destroy? I doubt any of you really think about why you are here, and will simply make excuses, or maybe repeat something about what God told Joseph about the creeds, or that I somehow otherwise hurt you with my faith, etc.

1-millions of humans verifying Alma32 science; 2- anti-scholar BofM attacks fail 100% of honest examination including: metals; morphology; the undeniable, detailed relationship between Native and Middle Eastern religions (including thousands of things ranging from things mentioned above; swords; names: Alma, Laman, etc. (maybe a 100?)); precise geography; located places (and it’s not just Nahom anymore); arrival by sea; reformed Egyptian; liahona culture; steel; Shule in Pacal’s ancestry; River Laman; silk; sheep; elephants; glass in Jared’s day; breathers in barges (not rolling); Sidon; volcanos @33AD; witnesses; roads cast "up", etc etc etc), clapping; customs, it goes on and on....


And now, I’m moving back to Abraham, try to stay focused : ) luv ya


(I left the last part because I really am going to get back on that-- you should join us :), if you can stay focused. The BofA is newer for me vs the BofM, especially the KEP. Do you have anything beyond Vogel, etc.?

Anonymous said...

Response to 3:16 post.

The link works just fine if you copy and paste correctly. Here it is again all alone to make it easier:

https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/2012_Nature_NativeAmericans_0.pdf

Hand is relevant. The further removed you are from the source document, the less credible the information. Just like what you believe happened with the Bible—too many hands in the pot. This is research 101.

Anonymous said...

3:35 post

You write “you’ll have to take that up with the experts,” then proceed to cite an article written by Mary Harrsch. Her credentials? “Retired education technologist and independent history scholar specializing in the ancient world, particularly the Roman Empire.” Hardly an expert. Read “I majored in Education Technology and dabble in history.”

Anonymous said...

I didn’t miss that part. I didn’t respond because it’s a jumble of words with no meaning or explanation. It may mean something to you but you’d be hard pressed to find anyone else who could make head or tails of it.

That’s part of the draw in responding to you. You have an interesting mixture of ignorance, smugness, and non-attention to details (despite attempting to share many) that is pretty unique. It’s been fun seeing you flounder about in your data and try to make sense of your senselessness. It is beginning to grow tiresome, however.

Talking down to me by laying down rules because your time is precious and you deigning to share your information with me by sacrificing time with your family was especially rich. Don’t ignore your kids on my account. I’m sure they enjoy hearing from you much more than I do.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:49 - spot on. Ramer is going around telling everyone how polite Joe is. This is what Jeff' s blog has become, and it probably sums up Mormonism. Jeff runs away whenever he encounters truly substantive items, and the Mormons that stay behind have the maturity of Ramer and Joe.

Anonymous said...

One last shot to demonstrate the inconsistency in your argument. You make the following two statements:

“The BEringia theory was invented in the 19th Century”

“They’re trying to prove a 19th Century theory.”

You imply that the Beringia theory is out of date because of its origins, while you are trying to prove a 16th-17th century theory that Native Americans are of Israelite descent (which has long been abandon because the research doesn’t back it up). We have an interesting pot/kettle scenario happening here.

JoePeaceman said...

Dude, I totally love your style! You have an amazing ability to see through everything and focus right in on your point.

Before responding to Anon/Morgography/not-OK/OK’s thoughtful comments, I’ll review. Gotta make sure we’re all on the same page, as to the progress we’ve made so far:

We agree that Jews and Native Americans are related. Anonymous critics feel Reich and Co. are experts because, after they eliminated the prominent DNA showing West Eurasian ancestry (assuming it’s all admixture) they were able to emphatically state that no ancient person or group ever made it to the Americas, unless it was across the ice from Siberia- 10,000 or 60,000 or whatever YBP or, another explanation for the DNA, is they mutated in Beringian for 7000 years first, isolated while others enjoyed the vast open resources of Russia, China, and the rest of the world. Reich and co. are not experts when they said in an interview that they can’t date the migration from genomic data, except when they are just going along with everyone else on the above.

We agree there is symbolism but, even though anonymous critics have studied the polytheistic religions of Mesoamerica, they don’t understand the central themes of Mayan religion and can’t see anything. In fact, even if Pacal was buried with a crucifix, fish bumper sticker, Madonna with child, and crusader armor, it’s clearly just human chance, as with anything supporting the BofM, or even the Bible, lowly religious humans do stuff like that all the time. They all look alike, and think alike. And the idea that they are related is out of date, but not the Beringia only theory.

Anonymous critic has proven the BofM false but, after a decade of trying to prove it’s false a second time, he decided not to share the actual proving information, probably because he cares about me and everyone and so doesn’t want us to stop serving, teaching children to avoid dark addictive paths, staying married forever, loving God and nature, etc.

Only Mormons have to play fair, anonymous critics don’t have to follow silly restrictive rules. Asking them to pick a name, describe beliefs, etc. is so Mormany and insulting.


Willerslev isn’t an expert because he can’t date, says we need caution, says Native Americans are related to Middle Easterners, and doesn’t know when they mixed, could have been here in the Americas;(and that sounds way too much like open mindedness and nonconformity to be an expert :))
OK, everyone?

Just because Not-ok is a badguy, doesn’t mean he’s a bad guy. He’s having fun, like Lucy with the football :).

I’m so excited to read what’s next (gonna be like Christmas)! But time for bed, so will have to get back to it soon : )

Anonymous said...

Yeah, we all get that sparing with strawmen is excites Joe. Maybe when he is done, we can all get on the same page.

BoM is true, as is the Voree translation. Whatever reason Joe gives for rejecting other things should also be used to reject the BoM. None of Joe's verbosity can change that.

JoePeaceman said...

You should spend more time reading the BofM : ). It’ll bring brightness into your life and you’ll also notice many details that you’ve missed e.g. the ores, animals etc. were noted shortly after arriving in the promised land. They soon had to abandon that for another, etc. But either way, people could have been encountered immediately, but we know they were later. e.g mulekites, Jaredites, “his people” up north?, etc. And, as I said, there is clearly a tradition that limits mentioning non-key peoples, or those who might claim kingship, and so on.
Luv ya

JoePeaceman said...

Glad I noticed this, I was just about to despair and give up on ever speaking again. But, it seems we can agree on something : ). Let’s pretend that we know for a fact that Native Americans and Jews both originated “from the Altai regions of southern Siberia” as you claim. Unlike “ Beringia Only” (which is becoming like Ptolemaic astronomy, local orbits, epicycles, etc. looking for a lifeboat) it’s not a theory that needs a lot of greasing. We also have Mal'ta boy, and some other valid evidence to support it.
So, we agree that some ancestors of Native Americans and Abraham ( :) focus) were from Siberia. There is also evidence that ancient Native Americans and Siberians had Indo-European features at one time. We can be nearly certain that there have been huge population movements in Western Asia, China, Russia, etc. and that some of Abraham’s descendants returned. Now, if Lehi migrated to the Americas, where related people already lived, and if there were a few interactions (say a couple of Nephi’s sisters, or Ishmael’s unmarried sons or something); or maybe some of their many descendants, etc. and there were “low values of genetic exchange between local and” related immigrants, or maybe there were many exchanges over the millennia, or maybe there were none, but less likely— whatever happened, the people were already related. This could be exactly the sort of situation that could help explain the oddities.

It’s simple, doesn’t require 20,000 year long epicycles, and fits in with the abundant evidence for relationships in other ways (e.g the symbols and mythologies that we discussed.
Luv ya. There’s probably some awesome Abraham thing I’m missing. Jeff has probably cracked the code : ). So I’m off, to bed.

Anonymous said...

For more interesting and extremely recent studies that also don’t agree with Joe’s hypothesis about how the Americas were populated, see:

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(18)31380-1

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6419/eaav2621

Please note that I provided links to the research and the papers were written by actual experts In the field, not experts in pottery or educational technology.

Anonymous said...

Joe - "interesting that y’all are here trying to sow seeds of doubt on that, especially when you know that the Church does so much good" yes it is interesting that you trying to sow seeds of doubt amongst the billion members of Christ's by telling them they don't belong to His church, especially when you know that they do some much good.

Anonymous said...

Joe - "You should spend more time reading the BofM : ). It’ll bring brightness into your life " It is neat that this is the case for you, but testimony from millions say this is not the case for them. You calling them liars, while none of them are calling you a liar. Your position is the height of arrogance and pretty much shows the source of all your hate. Saying "luv ya" while acting hatefully, doesn't negate the fact you have acted hatefully.

JoePeaceman said...

Looks like you’re having a conversation with the other Joe but, hope u don’t mind that i read the links for fun. With the help of my friend OK/Not-OK, we’ve developed a pretty solid BofM migration model, and have agreed that Jews and Native Americans share common ancient ancestry. These studies don’t disagree with that, but they are really interesting.
Some anonymous people seem to believe Reich is not an expert because he implied that he couldn’t date migrations by DNA. Maybe this will change anonymous minds (not that they'd admit to change and progress, but still...)because in this article Reich again gives dates, but it’s not clear if those are assumed from archaeology, or etc. I typically go with archaeology on dates (+or- a few thousand in some cases), and dna on dna but, either way, doesn’t matter to the Joe-OK/Not-OK model.
What is really interesting, however, is that Reich seems to maybe have some. Those of us who’ve studied this a bit (e.g. my friend OK/Not-Ok), know that politics play a big role in what we see about Native American ancestry, etc. (I wouldn’t trust “the Gentiles” either, God gave the Land to the current Native Americans though, so why stress...) and, even though it has been hinted at for some time, he said: “...Beginning around ~9,000 years ago with ancient samples in Peru, however, the authors detected an almost complete disappearance of the Clovis culture-associated ancestry in Central and South America, documenting a remarkable population replacement. The large-scale population replacement is a process that was not widely expected by archaeologists," says Reich. "This is an exciting example of how ancient DNA studies can reveal events in the past that were not confirmed and thus can stimulate new work in archaeology."

Of course, there will be much disagreement and a lot will change in the next study, but that’s science, gotta love it (and my friend OK/not-ok does love it : )

JoePeaceman said...

Anyway, this got me thinking about our model, and makes me wonder. Hopefully my friends return, and are wearing their thinking caps, because I really don’t know some of this, no joke : )

My research team (led by ok/not-ok), found a relationship between Native Americans and Jews. I, independently found that this relationship goes well beyond DNA, and includes a clear cultural relationship.
It seems the DNA relationship between Jews and Native Americans still exists today but, as we found, ancestors of both groups came out of Southern Siberia (Altai, etc., unless that has changed since I last checked)).
There were several migrations of peoples who had originated in Siberia and spread to the Middle East (much closer to southern Siberia vs Beringia) and fled, back to their genetic family in the Americas. One of these groups appears to have migrated to Central America around the time when American elephants, horses, etc. started to go extinct. They may have even helped contribute to that. This is also when melting glaciers, breaking ice dams, etc. were causing huge floods, migrations, possibly extinctions, and etc. Estimates on when this group migrated varies (for some it was 4200YBP, for others it’s even more). The Maya are said to count history in millions of years, but also have a beginning about 5000ybp, or after 3114BC (can’t remember if that’s when everything rises from the sea, but some say it was just after a great flood), and so on.
Reich argues for “remarkable population replacement” around ~9,000YBP. The BofM describes immigrants arriving not long after water had risen and was receding and there are many other evidences that the BofM and others may be talking about the same event.
So, the question--
Could the relatively slight difference in date be due to:
A.- we haven’t really understood the Jaredite record?
B- that “~”= +or- a few thousand years (seems unlikely at first, but keep in mind that the dates given for the first American immigrants regularly change by many thousands of years, so it wouldn’t be the first time that science progressed to new unexpected truths).
C- all of the above : ).
D- I’d say none of the above here but that wouldn’t require any cutting edge thinking, now would it… :)


Anonymous said...

Apparently Joe does not want to discuss how he has described his type of behavior as trying to sow seeds of doubt in Billions, despite how much good they have done.

JoePeaceman said...

Dude, I’m so sorry. I didn’t understand that u were really so far behind. Jaredite migrations and abrahamic dna (focus :)) probably aren’t for everyone, and I’m not really that interested in the critic’s social issues, but I will say two things:
1- my opinion is that there’s a huge difference between Catholics believing they’re the true church and so having faith, serving, etc. VS people hanging out on Catholic blogs and mocking, denigrating, discouraging faith and service, accusing, and etc.

2- bubeye :) luv ya.

Anonymous said...

"the critic’s social issues": Dude, you are the one that voted to move from 19th century Ohio Eygptomania to your frustrations. Try to keep up with yourself.

"there’s a huge difference": Every time an anti-Christian says this, you know Mormon hate is about to follow. It appears to imply this vague, non-description emotion that basically says the person saying it thinks they are special because they say so. We all know what opinions are like, thanks for reasserting that you have one too.

"mocking, denigrating, discouraging faith and service, accusing, and etc." Considering you do this the most here, why don't you want to discuss it? We are all here to help you to come closer to Christ.

JoePeaceman said...

Noticed this “We are all here to help you to come closer to Christ.” and realized I said bye without saying “thanks”. So, thanks :). You all have inspired me to draw nearer to Christ, and drawing nearer is behind everything I do, including reading Jeff’s edifying Christian blogs, and having conversations with anonymous accusers.

When I observe Christians such as: members of my family, my Ward Congregation, Jeff, etc. and contrast them and their light, faith, and works, with those who spend their time attacking the Book of Mormon (with its profound testimonies of Christ) , which provides the most powerful historical evidence for the Bible (and therefore of the historical Christ)—seeing that contrast does help me draw nearer to The Lord.
And, it’s not just that. For example, the Critics have been at it for 2000 years and beyond. There were some successes for them through the dark ages and with Bible spinning Pharisees, Romans, and Northern Israel, etc. and there still are, even after Christ restored His Church. Then the accusers redoubled their efforts and continued to “stone” the prophets (or shoot in some cases, but same thing) and to promote what u call “Mormon hate” (but should respectfully be called “hatred towards members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”), HOWEVER, even after 200 years of intensified effort with countless hours and lives wasted trying to discourage and drive us, and yet , still, we, and our BofM, stand firmly as witnesses of Christ. And, as I watch u carry on with that tradition it strengthens me, and I feel His Spirit confirming that He is real. They haven’t touched us really, and even if I were to join those who fall for the darkness, your church will never truly be successful in kicking against the Book of Mormon and its testimony of Christ.
So, thanks. :). Another reason to love you. I’ll keep trying to help you out of burying your own soul in the process, but ultimately, you’re going to have to repent and call upon God. ❤️❤️ <3 ( : (:

Anonymous said...

I see, so you don't want to get that rod out of your eye, you only want to focus specks in the eyes of others that have not attacked the BoM. I am sorry to see you join the accusers and those who fall for darkness carrying on a tradition of hate. It is never too late for you to repent and chose to follow what you actually preach, instead of burying yourself deeper. God bless, praying for you to come out of the darkness ...