tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post5005114990799895421..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: A Significant Scholarly Publication Includes Two Articles on Hebrew Elements in the Book of MormonJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-66792026990289596062016-02-29T15:00:31.674-06:002016-02-29T15:00:31.674-06:00Is iambic pentameter a cultural phenomenon? Poetr...Is iambic pentameter a cultural phenomenon? Poetry exists in all languages outside of culture. I'm not sure that is a valid comparison. <br /><br />Nephi is stating that there is already such a cultural divide between his people and Jews (or Hebrews) that they already don't understand how to interpret Isaiah because of it. If this is true, how do cultural and linguistic figures of speech and modes of writing survive the hundreds of years of separation from the parent culture? It would stand to reason that this would be the case if the culture attempted to be insular and maintain its identity but, according to Nephi, they are trying to distance themselves am much as possible from the Hebrews culturally. Also seems to be shadows of anti-semitism in the above BoM passages. . . Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-2238026929302478382016-02-29T09:19:43.490-06:002016-02-29T09:19:43.490-06:00@ Anonymous
Have you looked at any of the Folger ...@ Anonymous<br /><br />Have you looked at any of the Folger Shakespeare Library? The books are much larger than needed to cover the actual play because an opening essay as well as an additional page for every page of the play is added in order to, among other things, provide cultural context. Culturally, we have very little in common with the England of Shakespeare's day. But we can still write poetry in iambic pentameter, and some do.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08584593407229585848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-19521892712174406432016-02-29T07:48:58.353-06:002016-02-29T07:48:58.353-06:00As I was reading yesterday in 2 Nephi 25, I came a...As I was reading yesterday in 2 Nephi 25, I came across these interesting passages wherein Nephi basically distances himself, but more importantly his descendants, from Hebrew culture. His claim is that they are already so far distant culturally that his people no longer inderstand the words of Isaiah:<br />1 Now I, Nephi, do speak somewhat concerning the words which I have written, which have been spoken by the mouth of Isaiah. For behold, Isaiah spake many things which were hard for many of my people to understand; for they know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews.<br /><br />2 For I, Nephi, have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews; for their works were works of darkness, and their doings were doings of abominations.<br /><br /><br />5 Yea, and my soul delighteth in the words of Isaiah, for I came out from Jerusalem, and mine eyes hath beheld the things of the Jews, and I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews.<br /><br />6 But behold, I, Nephi, have not taught my children after the manner of the Jews; but behold, I, of myself, have dwelt at Jerusalem, wherefore I know concerning the regions round about; and I have made mention unto my children concerning the judgments of God, which hath come to pass among the Jews, unto my children, according to all that which Isaiah hath spoken, and I do not write them.<br /><br />How can the Bom contain Hebrewims if they are culturally no longer Hebrews?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-50290998825447451922016-02-09T09:59:40.105-06:002016-02-09T09:59:40.105-06:00I don't mean to say that faithful Mormon schol...I don't mean to say that faithful Mormon scholarship is all worthless. John Tvedtnes has persuaded some of the world's leading Hebrew scholars that articles on Hebraism in the Book of Mormon deserve a place in an encyclopedia on Hebrew. The high dues to which I just referred are not too high for any Mormon ever to pay. The challenge is hard, but fair.<br /><br />(I do note that acknowledging Hebraism in the Book of Mormon does not mean acknowledging that the Book of Mormon was translated from Hebrew. Imitation of a text full of Hebraisms, like the English Old Testament, would produce perfectly genuine Hebraisms in its turn. Dang it, there's always a catch! Yes, indeed. The dues are high.)<br /><br />I don't mean to say, either, that Mormons are dumb for taking their scriptures on faith. Most beliefs of all kinds are based on faith. I'm interested to learn how people think, who believe differently from me. <br /><br />Mormonism is a kind of a special case among religions. It was recently founded, and its scriptures make strong claims about ancient American history. Mormonism claims to speak of the same God and the same Jesus who are revered by much larger and older religions, but Mormon theology is radically different. The uphill road of Mormonism is in these ways steeper than most.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-37566930701949096882016-02-09T09:44:19.056-06:002016-02-09T09:44:19.056-06:00@Glenn Thigpen, about evidence:
If we were arguin...@Glenn Thigpen, about evidence:<br /><br />If we were arguing about whether the Book of Mormon were composed by Smith, Cowdery, or Rigdon, then you could present a fe circumstantial details in favor of Rigdon, and if I wanted to uphold the case for Cowdery in the face of your evidence, then I'd have to scrape up evidence of my own. But if you're arguing for a miraculous prophecy, you have a long, uphill road to walk first. <br /><br />You need to establish, about every piece of your evidence, that it is definitely not a Texas Sharpshooter, a cherry-picked example outweighed by other examples, or a false-positive artifact of flawed methodology. You need to show that you recognize the huge burden of proof that lies upon your side, and make sure you don't simply ignore obvious alternative theories.<br /><br />At least in my view, we are still in that long, uphill walk stage. And whether my view is fair or not, it's a common view among non-Mormons. One of the best thing Mormon apologists could do, to win credibility, would be to acknowledge this uphill climb, and answer more of the standard critical questions before being asked them, instead of constantly creating disconnect by acting as though everyone accepted the Mormon theory as a hypothesis that was inherently just as plausible as human authorship.<br /><br />The two rival hypotheses — fraud or miracle — are not on an equal footing for me. This is not because I simply rule out miracle in general. On the contrary, I believe in revelation. I just don't think it happens often. Con artists are much more common than true prophets.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-25700362534525464112016-02-09T07:25:56.243-06:002016-02-09T07:25:56.243-06:00Ben, no, Hebraisms cannot all be explained as EMod...Ben, no, Hebraisms cannot all be explained as EModE. Only a few of them overlap. I don't think any of the many Hebraic wordplays have any chance of an EModE explanation. Captain Moroni's waving of the rent of his garment (later corrected to the "rent part" of his garment) makes perfect sense in Hebrew but is impossible in English. EModE doesn't fix that flaw. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-10737667505883935512016-02-09T07:17:49.105-06:002016-02-09T07:17:49.105-06:00One of the sad things about the Internet and the m...One of the sad things about the Internet and the mask of anonymity it provides is that eventually any highly polarized discussion seems to spiral down into people comparing their opponents to Hitler. This is unfortunate, if only for the painfully narrow view of history it reflects. There are so many other interesting bad guys to choose from--why must it always be Hitler? Let's at least cycle through a few others when you need to make a desperate, hysterical assault on Mormonism. Stalin, for example, killed many more than Hitler. But Tamerlane (Timurlenk) and his Asiatic hordes, with their slaughter of children and massive pyramids of human skulls, would also be an interesting embodiment of the evil that our critics see in us. Why does he always get left out? And guess what--you don't even need to use real villains! Darth Vader, or the memorable planet-killing what's-his-name from the latest Star Wars movie, would certainly add a little more flavor here when it's time to hurl your ultimate insults against Joseph, Brigham, Thomas S. Monson, or yours truly. Come on folks, keep it fresh!Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-72964957139906818292016-01-27T18:31:42.333-06:002016-01-27T18:31:42.333-06:00Joseph and Jesus existing, especially in the way d...Joseph and Jesus existing, especially in the way described through the bible, is highly unlikely on its own accord. <br /><br />No need to bring them into the fray, as the documents that describe them are absolutely Riddled with fraudulence. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-36350079719264161472016-01-27T16:50:15.891-06:002016-01-27T16:50:15.891-06:00Well, gee, Vance, if we are wrong to focus only on...Well, gee, Vance, if we are wrong to focus only on the negative, I'll bet we could find plenty of reasons why Hitler is a hero. After all, why would we allow only the negative details to taint our entire view of the man? He brought a nation together. He encouraged marriage and the bearing of children! He encouraged family history work! (Deseret News even ran a story about this in the 1930's, saying how good the Nazi Regime had been for the church's family history efforts!). He implemented a national fast, so that money could be donated to help others! He pulled people out of unemployment and put them to work. He gave an entire nation back its pride! <br /><br />Why in the world do we focus so heavily on all that bad publicity....? Shucks...maybe we need a man like Hitler right now to finally reunited this terribly divided country of ours.<br /><br />Vance, you only want to focus on the positive narrative of your religion that you have grown up with. While you may acknowledge the negative facts, you don't really want to deal with the implications of those facts. <br /><br />And then, you come here every 15 days or so, pipe in to the conversation, engage me in debate, and then after I respond, you usually vanish again. If you want to have a conversation with me, Vance, let's do it elsewhere, off of Jeff's site. Click on my username above, make a comment on one of my blog posts letting me know you have arrived and are ready to have a chat. <br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-22056782145428933462016-01-27T15:42:02.108-06:002016-01-27T15:42:02.108-06:00Not only that, Douglas: Moses was a mass murderer ...Not only that, Douglas: Moses was a mass murderer who committed treason by murdering the Crown Prince. He was an environmental assassin, who destroyed millions of acres of land and polluted an entire river. Just ask any Egyptian. I'm sure they can give the real view of Moses, not any of that propaganda found in Exodus, which research has found was stolen blatantly from the Babylonians anyway. I mean, think of the nerve of those Israelites, claiming to have experiences with God....<br /><br />I'm sure you agree, everythingbeforeus? Moses and Jesus were nothing but frauds too, using your criteria. Vancenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-68335912731331170762016-01-27T10:27:39.436-06:002016-01-27T10:27:39.436-06:00Hey EBU, nothing that Tony said about Joseph Smith...Hey EBU, nothing that Tony said about Joseph Smith has anything to do the presence of Early Modern English that predates the Bible in the Book of Mormon. They are subjects that have been discussed ad nauseum on other boards. Joseph Smith could have been a serial murderer, married seven hundred wives, robbed every bank in the United States and Canada, etc. and that would not change the fact the he produced the Book of Mormon with the currently discussed phenomena.<br /><br />The empty assertions I was referring to was that the Early Modern English came from Joseph's hick language. There has been absolutely no evidence produced to support that assertion, thus it is empty, hollow, worthless.<br /><br />Instead of the discussion being silly, it is apparent that you, Tony, James Anglin, etc. have no real answer to the questions that the data poses. How did it get there?<br /><br />Instead, you throw in stuff that has nothing to do with the topic. That does not give you any points in the debate.<br /><br />GlennGlenn Thigpenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16289698106336334148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-81051004297116563092016-01-27T08:18:13.074-06:002016-01-27T08:18:13.074-06:00One last thing! While Hebraisms are a cool idea, i...One last thing! While Hebraisms are a cool idea, if they can all be explained (and I have no idea if ALL of them can be... Someone want to look into this for us? Jeff maybe since you're familiar with the data?) as EModE, then it would make since to embrace the encompassing framework. The more explaination power a particular method of analysis is the more convincing. I hope that the more the BOM is examined the clearer picture we will get. If that is a mysterious text that seems to have grammatical and syntactical roots in the 15th century with later updates, that's cool, or if Joseph's eastern frontier dialect can somehow explain it, that's cool too. Or If it looks the most like Hebrew translated to English (which from what I've read it seems like that's not the case), we should be able to disentangle that.Ben Brittonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15168800131826822235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-85867096759417830342016-01-27T08:05:33.445-06:002016-01-27T08:05:33.445-06:00I should also mention that Mormon scholars with a ...I should also mention that Mormon scholars with a traditional interpretation need to address the evidence in context too, since EModE also throws a wrench in. There have been apologetic explanations, but again no evidence to back up the hypothesis. Like I said, all we have is the data of BOM grammar and syntax (from Slousen's critical text project and Stanford Carmack's analysis).Ben Brittonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15168800131826822235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-76894428850116365942016-01-27T08:02:07.228-06:002016-01-27T08:02:07.228-06:00I'm holding out on the pre-kjv. It's being...I'm holding out on the pre-kjv. It's being published by Yale press (3rd volume of Skousen's critical text of the BOM), and there have been no scholarly rebuttals yet. I'll be interested to see what other scholars say as they take up the evidence, as the evidence needs to be addressed. Right now, all we know is that there is pervasive use of pre-KJV English syntax and grammar in appropriate proportions and variations for pre-KJV time period. Since that doesn't fit completely with all of the KJV allusion nor with the dominant secular hypothesis that Joseph Smith authored the text, scholars will need to address the EModE in particular. There have been hypothesis that some elements of EModE survived in Hickland frontier (despite having gone out of usage in England prior to the 1600s...), but no one has presented evidence backing up that idea yet. I'll be excited to see more evidence either way.Ben Brittonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15168800131826822235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-72868125362300656872016-01-27T07:57:42.983-06:002016-01-27T07:57:42.983-06:00@everythingbeforeus
And Jesus really was a womani...@everythingbeforeus<br /><br />And Jesus really was a womanizing, hard-drinking, blaspheming rabblerouser of dubious parentage, just ask the people that knew him -- like those of his home town that tried to throw him off a cliff. The people that knew him best painted a very different picture, of course, but they can be safely ignored because they're his friends and therefore biased while his enemies clearly saw the man for what he was. So the arguments over his extravagant claims and purported miracles are just silly.<br /><br />Joseph Smith's history is hardly as cut-and-dried as you portray.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08584593407229585848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-5029687130824211442016-01-27T07:56:27.940-06:002016-01-27T07:56:27.940-06:00The only thing Carmack, Tvedtnes, and this blog ha...The only thing Carmack, Tvedtnes, and this blog have shown is the BoM is a blend of Early Modern English, Modern English, Hebraism, Greek-isms, KJV Old and New Testament excerpts. <br /><br />All of this brought to us by one man with zero source material, and Glen asks critics to provide evidence that it's a fraud?<br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-70231415069085254742016-01-27T07:40:34.094-06:002016-01-27T07:40:34.094-06:00Tony isn't making empty assertions. Joseph Smi...Tony isn't making empty assertions. Joseph Smith really did have a shady past. He really married other men's wives, create fraudulent translations and plagiarize like a New York Times junior editor, and then he died in a gunfight, having been imprisoned for destroying private property in order to cover up his adultery. This really happened. When you let that soak in for a while, you'll begin to see that this argument over pre-KJV English is just silly. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-55294089945578060622016-01-27T00:29:49.091-06:002016-01-27T00:29:49.091-06:00Hey Tony V,
Have you even read any of the relev...Hey Tony V,<br /> Have you even read any of the relevant articles to which I have been referring???<br /> You are making empty assertions, devoid of any evidence to back up tour statements. I am afraid that you will not be able to go to the head of the class. Not even close.<br /><br />GlennGlenn Thigpenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16289698106336334148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-56437379453490413352016-01-26T15:28:06.279-06:002016-01-26T15:28:06.279-06:00I must admit I'm bemused at this debate. When...I must admit I'm bemused at this debate. When Joseph Smith dictated his Book of Mormon he was clearly mimicking KJV constructions. But phrases like 'plates of brass' and 'with patience'--those aren't even Hebraisms, for heaven's sake. That's plain English. <br /><br />The stuff about 'pre-KJV' English is also silly. Joseph spoke a hick dialect, and hick dialects typically contain obsolete words and constructions. Nor shoud we expect consistency of construction in a dictation someone was making up out of thin air. Every idiolect contains variation--ie, people use alternative, competing constructions in their speech. That's the raw material for language change. <br /><br />People--and I don't just mean hick con artists, but all of us--typically code-switch from one register to another. Of course, in a translated text from a tangible original, we'd expect to see more uniformity--but we don't with the BoM.<br /><br />Glen--what kind of evidence do you want? A guy with a shady past--who was later to 'marry' other men's wives, was caught out by other texts both genuine (Greek Psalter) and fraudulent (Kinderhook Plates), and died in a gunfight with a gun in his hand--claims he 'translated' a book from golden plates...which an angel then took away, leaving no trace of a primary source. What exactly is the evidence you want?Tony Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10862727279147129707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-61184045412536284772016-01-26T07:47:59.212-06:002016-01-26T07:47:59.212-06:00Whoa there, Glenn. Joseph Smith being a farm boy i...Whoa there, Glenn. Joseph Smith being a farm boy is all the evidence we need<br />(/sarcasm)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-92053295570752999582016-01-26T02:05:43.853-06:002016-01-26T02:05:43.853-06:00James Anglin said "Apologetic evidence is sub...James Anglin said "Apologetic evidence is subject to the same kind of challenge. If something is presented as evidence that the Book of Mormon could not have been composed by Joseph Smith, then raising even a hypothetical scenario in which Smith could still have composed the Book, despite that evidence, suffices to eliminate the weight of that supposed evidence. The argument proves that the purported evidence doesn't show what it was purported to show."<br /><br />Making an observation that a suspected robber could have taken off his/her hat does not relieve the prosecution of the necessity of proving their case. However, that is a far cry from the current situation. The hypothesis that a person could have taken off a hat is one of the "no brainer" variety of observations. It is something that has been seen before. There is a high degree of plausibility/possibility.<br /><br />Any valid hypothesis is based upon observed phenomena. A hypothesis should also be testable. If a scientist comes up with a hypothesis after a series of experiments, he/she will present the data and describe the methodology to the scientific world for anyone interested to perform the same experiments using the same methodology in order to verify the results. If a scientist comes up with some "new thing" but fails/refuses to document his/ experiments and methodology, his/her credibility is toast in the scientific community. However, once a hypothesis has been tested several ways from Sunday, it can become commonly accepted as a theory.<br /><br />For some time, the critical mantra is that the Biblical sounding language from the Book of Mormon came from Joseph consciously trying to imitate the the language of the Bible. The discovery that much of the language of the Book of Mormon is Early Modern English that predates the Bible and the further research by Stanford Carmack has pretty much demolished that untested hypothesis.<br /><br />So, anyone who says that Joseph Smith could have done this or that in order for him to produce Hebraisms, chiasmus, Early Modern English, etc. in the Book of Mormon, needs to be able to back up their hypothesis with some kind of evidence to make it credible. It is reasonable to ask a critic to demonstrate that their hypothesis has some significant degree of plausibility/possibility. It is reasonable to ask the critic to present <i><b>some</b></i> evidence to back up an untested hypothesis.<br /><br /><br />Do you have any???<br /><br />GlennGlenn Thigpenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16289698106336334148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-33131963614146696422016-01-25T04:21:12.300-06:002016-01-25T04:21:12.300-06:00To demand evidence of critics, in discussions like...To demand evidence of critics, in discussions like this, is putting the cart before the horse. Evidence isn't legal tender, such that it has to be accepted at face value. If someone presents something as evidence, other people need to assess its evidential weight. And there's a very basic stage of that assessment, which comes even before looking closely at details. It's checking whether the evidence presented, if it were real, would actually contradict the opposing theory.<br /><br />Suppose a defense attorney is trying to get her client off on a robbery charge, by pointing out that the surveillance camera shows a guy with a hat approaching the bank, and then noting that her client was apprehended bare-headed. The prosecutor can simply point out, "The guy could have taken the hat off." <br /><br />The prosecutor offers no evidence that the accused wore a hat and removed it. That scenario is merely raised as a speculation. So if course it won't convict the accused — and no-one pretends that it will. What it does do, however, even without any evidence, is demolish the hat video as an alibi. The mere observation, that a smart robber would have taken off the hat, shows that the hat video really only rules out a straw man scenario: that the accused was an extremely dumb robber. It says nothing at all against the prosecutor's actual case, which is that the accused was a moderately intelligent robber.<br /><br />Apologetic evidence is subject to the same kind of challenge. If something is presented as evidence that the Book of Mormon could not have been composed by Joseph Smith, then raising even a hypothetical scenario in which Smith could still have composed the Book, despite that evidence, suffices to eliminate the weight of that supposed evidence. The argument proves that the purported evidence doesn't show what it was purported to show. <br /><br />The apologist may object that the hypothetical scenario which is offered, to explain the purported evidence, is too far-fetched to be credible. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder, however. Perhaps some jury members will find it easily plausible that a robber might wear a hat to the job and then take it off while escaping. Other members of the jury may, however, be impressed if the defense attorney blusters, "What? Take his hat off? That's crazy talk. Who ever takes off a hat?" The defense attorney is certainly entitled to try that response.<br /><br />The defense attorney could also complain that the prosecutor has offered no evidence that the accused wore a hat and removed it. As a rhetorical dodge, that might also sway some jury members. As a logical objection, however, it makes no sense. The hat video was presented as evidence by the defense. It is up to the defense to show that the evidence has weight against the prosecution's case (such as by proving that no hat was found anywhere near the defendant). The defense has no right to demand tit-for-tat evidence, when pure argument shows that the purported defense evidence is only evidence against a straw man.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-48333767666463766832016-01-25T04:09:28.804-06:002016-01-25T04:09:28.804-06:00The topic of this blog post is Hebraisms in the Bo...The topic of this blog post is Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon. Within a few comment posts, this led to discussion of Greek-isms and Early Modern English in the text, and Jeff's theory that these anomalies could be translation features rather than anachronisms — given the unusual nature of divine translation.<br /><br />I acknowledged that this was a self-consistent Mormon explanation, even though it might surprise critics, and even though it is a conveniently powerful argument for disposing not just of whatever problems we have found in the text so far, but of any conceivable problems that one might ever find. A divine translator can do anything.<br /><br />It is not a non-sequitur to point out, as I did, that critics can withstand even such a conveniently powerful theory, because we have conveniently powerful theories of our own. The theory of a cunning con-artist with a willing audience is also able to explain just about any feature of the text that might ever turn up.<br /><br />The connecting thread is the nature of theories that are inherently robust, in that they can account for any foreseeable kind of evidence.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-13244939984314285602016-01-24T22:42:19.772-06:002016-01-24T22:42:19.772-06:00@Ben Britton
I understand your point. That is w...@Ben Britton<br /> I understand your point. That is why I try to stay with the "non-miraculous" topics. Things that point away from a nineteenth century origin. I am seeking mostly that a skeptic/critic provide something besides assertions to bolster their skeptical arguments.<br /><br />GlennGlenn Thigpenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16289698106336334148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-76581936644299235182016-01-24T22:18:50.228-06:002016-01-24T22:18:50.228-06:00Glenn, I think it's very easy for non-mormons ...Glenn, I think it's very easy for non-mormons to see Joseph Smith and BOM as a products of their time. For example while it does have affinities with the ancient word that are difficult to explain by secular means (ex. system of weights/money that aligns with ancient Israelite and near east systems in Alma. Ex. Dozens of unique textual links with the Narative of Zosimus, an apocraphal document that tells the general Nephite narrative, which was not rediscovered and translated into English until 1870), it just happens to line up with prevalent 19th century speculations and some more serious hypotheses by various specialists of the time period, which claimed that Native Americans were some how lost Israelites (I think the lost 10 tribes was the most common guess, but either way linking Native Americans to an Israelite heritage was fairly common). We also get a story of a guardian angel, gold plates, and other treasures that seem like a natural outgrowth of Joseph Smith's treasure hunting time. I've personally been to one of his digs out in Palmyra, which the earliest accounts of say that Joseph Smith told his treasure digging buddies they were digging for a golden throne upon which sat a king of the ancient inhabitants of America who died in battle. I've only given a couple examples here, but it quickly becomes very easy to see how critics looking back on Joseph Smith's account see less divinity and more man. However, it's easy for Mormons like myself to look back at all this and see God using the understanding of man to do his work, "a marvelous work and a wonder."Ben Brittonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15168800131826822235noreply@blogger.com