Here's one not mentioned on the website. Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy. Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln.
I can sure see from this list of parallels that Lincolns entire life and Kennedy's entire life originated in the mind of one person. Or maybe two or three. Hm.... do we know if either one knew a person named Rigdon? Or Spalding?
It's ironic that you're ridiculing the very approach apologists use to bolster the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.
And for the record, my post made no conclusions about why the accounts are similar, just that they are.
Runtu wrote: It's ironic that you're ridiculing the very approach apologists use to bolster the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.
And for the record, my post made no conclusions about why the accounts are similar, just that they are.
There are parallels, and then there are parallels. You can find a load of parallels to the Book of Mormon in "Leaves of Grass" by Walt Whitman. (See Jeff Lindsay's website.) But if you then make the conclusion that Jospeh Smith copies "Leaves of Grass" you are really off base. (The Book of Mormon came first.) And there are those who know Whitman's life history and would snort at the idea that he copied anything from the Book of Mormon.
Just a word on my understanding of parallels. Those who want to show "evidences" from parallels have to be careful about the parallels they think mean something. The languge parallels noted are nothing more than translation artifacts. Of course, the Book of Mormon was given to Joseph in words and phrases that were in his daily use of language. We would expect to find common themes. Humans have been repeating history as long as we can tell.
Why don't we hear from the critics about non-parallels. Some people have tried to say that the potical situations in the Book of Mormon were standard politics of the early 1800's in America. But if you look closely, you will see that it really 8is not so. So, if Joseph was writing what he knew, why don't we find democracy and republics scattered throughout the Book of Mormon?
charity wrote: So, if Joseph was writing what he knew, why don't we find democracy and republics scattered throughout the Book of Mormon?
Because Joseph knew that the Indians didn't use democracy and republics? He wrote about what he thought preceded the 1800's Indians, not what preceded the 1800's white men.
Runtu wrote: It's ironic that you're ridiculing the very approach apologists use to bolster the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.
And for the record, my post made no conclusions about why the accounts are similar, just that they are.
There are parallels, and then there are parallels. You can find a load of parallels to the Book of Mormon in "Leaves of Grass" by Walt Whitman. (See Jeff Lindsay's website.) But if you then make the conclusion that Jospeh Smith copies "Leaves of Grass" you are really off base. (The Book of Mormon came first.) And there are those who know Whitman's life history and would snort at the idea that he copied anything from the Book of Mormon.
Kind of like the way those who have actually read the Apocalypse of Abraham "snort" at the idea that the Book of Abraham is somehow related to it?
Just a word on my understanding of parallels. Those who want to show "evidences" from parallels have to be careful about the parallels they think mean something. The languge parallels noted are nothing more than translation artifacts. Of course, the Book of Mormon was given to Joseph in words and phrases that were in his daily use of language. We would expect to find common themes. Humans have been repeating history as long as we can tell.
Then it would behoove you guys to stop using parallels as evidence of the Book of Mormon's antiquity. It cuts both ways, you know.
Why don't we hear from the critics about non-parallels. Some people have tried to say that the potical situations in the Book of Mormon were standard politics of the early 1800's in America. But if you look closely, you will see that it really 8is not so. So, if Joseph was writing what he knew, why don't we find democracy and republics scattered throughout the Book of Mormon?
I've never claimed that Book of Mormon politics were anything like early American republicanism. Quite the contrary. They reflect what was widely believed about Native American political structure, as we would expect.
Runtu wrote: Kind of like the way those who have actually read the Apocalypse of Abraham "snort" at the idea that the Book of Abraham is somehow related to it?
Themes, runtu, not words.
Runtu wrote:Then it would behoove you guys to stop using parallels as evidence of the Book of Mormon's antiquity. It cuts both ways, you know.
There are legitimate parallels. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
Runtu wrote:
Why don't we hear from the critics about non-parallels. Some people have tried to say that the potical situations in the Book of Mormon were standard politics of the early 1800's in America. But if you look closely, you will see that it really 8is not so. So, if Joseph was writing what he knew, why don't we find democracy and republics scattered throughout the Book of Mormon?
I've never claimed that Book of Mormon politics were anything like early American republicanism. Quite the contrary. They reflect what was widely believed about Native American political structure, as we would expect.
Oh, Native Americans had theocracies and a system of judges? I took a class in Native American History. There wasn't anything aobut theocracies and judges.
It's a huge stretch to say the two documents are related thematically.
There are legitimate parallels. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
What constitutes a legitimate parallel?
Oh, Native Americans had theocracies and a system of judges? I took a class in Native American History. There wasn't anything aobut theocracies and judges.
I've covered this already in my post about Book of Mormon evidences. The idea of political leaders selected partly from their religious standing is quite common in Native American history. People living at the time of Joseph Smith knew that. And anyone who knows anything about Mesoamerica knows that religion and political structure were well entwined. Again, this was no surprise in Joseph Smith's day.
charity wrote:Oh, Native Americans had theocracies and a system of judges? I took a class in Native American History. There wasn't anything aobut theocracies and judges.
I would say it's more likely that he was trying to mirror the Bible with his accounts of kings, judges and prophets. After all, they supposedly came from Jerusalem.
By the way, Charity, Lincoln never had a secretary named Kennedy. That's an oft-repeated myth.
charity wrote:Oh, Native Americans had theocracies and a system of judges? I took a class in Native American History. There wasn't anything aobut theocracies and judges.
I would say it's more likely that he was trying to mirror the Bible with his accounts of kings, judges and prophets. After all, they supposedly came from Jerusalem.
By the way, Charity, Lincoln never had a secretary named Kennedy. That's an oft-repeated myth.
charity wrote:Oh, Native Americans had theocracies and a system of judges? I took a class in Native American History. There wasn't anything aobut theocracies and judges.
I would say it's more likely that he was trying to mirror the Bible with his accounts of kings, judges and prophets. After all, they supposedly came from Jerusalem.
By the way, Charity, Lincoln never had a secretary named Kennedy. That's an oft-repeated myth.
He did however have a secretary named John (some myths just get their nomenclature order mixed up).
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski