Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Nevo]

So again, if one views this from the skeptical point of view (as I do) the question is raised, is the cave association with the hill Cumorah coincidental to Spalding's cave?

Yes.

[_Always Changing]

I said:
But, then, why did they go to the trouble of retrieving Spalding's writings?

Roger said:
Who is the "they" you reference?

Smith and Co. If they knew that the Book of Mormon was an original translation of a previously unavailable work, why did they look into the Spalding papers which Hurlbut had recovered?

Roger said:
the more conspirators you add to your theory, the less credible it becomes, unless there are solid reasons for suspecting specific individuals.

There are solid reasons for suspecting Ethan Smith. Others, if there were any, are vague enough to say possibly......

There were plenty of indications that this was in the works substantially before 1830. The Smith family already knew that they had an opportunity to make money. Joseph Smith Jr. laid the groundwork.

[_Darth J]

So why have I apparently resorted to the "Courtier's Reply" with respect to the Book of Mormon?

The Courtier's Reply is "a particularly ham-handed argument from authority where the position's proponent attempts to bury the opponent under a pile of detail which is largely irrelevant to the opponent's argument." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier's_Reply

Based on the speculative ideas promulgated by Brant Gardner that I have already read, I don't need to read anything more to know that in his six-volume set,

1. He will provide no empirical evidence at all that any of the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon ever existed.
2. He will not demonstrate any kind of coherent methodology that would be accepted by mainstream archaeology or any other field.

Since these are both threshold issues that distinguish theories about UFO's building the pyramids and so forth from verifiable reality, the discussion about the Nephites ever really existing in the real world is a non-starter.

Simply this: I have recently been reading Sorenson's latest book (and his earlier Ancient Setting book, which I picked up over the summer) as well as bits of Gardner's commentary (in Kindle form) and have come to the realization that the case for the historicity of the Book of Mormon is not as inconsiderable as I had supposed.

What impresses me the most about Sorenson's and Gardner's work is the realization that the Mayans both do and do not have anything to do with the Nephites.

http://joelsmonastery.blogspot.com/2012 ... -obey.html

As Lamanites, they were divided and continually seeking to to get gain and power over one another. Of the incident of Ammon and Lamoni, Brant Gardner explained that it fit nicely in with Mayan culture.

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/sorenson ... ichael-coe

Nephite culture was not closely congruent with Maya culture.

[_Darth J]

Brothers and sisters...[sob]....my heart is so full this day.

I bear you my solemn witness, that I have read Grant Hardy's "Understanding the Book of Mormon"....[affected sigh]....and Gardner's six-volume set....

[sniffle while trying to hold back tears].....

And I know, with every fiber of my being, that the Book of Mormon has a certain numinous quality, and that it teems with literary complexity and layered meaning.....

And I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

[Anonymous]

Fair enough. What is the earliest testimony we have regarding Joseph's discovery of the plates?

Probably this:

In the fall of 1827, a person by the name of Joseph Smith, of Manchester, Ontario county, reported that he had been visited in a dream by the spirit of the Almighty and informed that in a certain hill in that town, was deposited this Golden Bible, containing an ancient record of a divine nature and origin After having been thrice thus visited, as he states, he proceeded to the spot, and after penetrating "mother earth" a short distance, the Bible was found, together with a huge pair of spectacles! He had been directed, however, not to let any mortal being examine them, "under no less penalty" than instant death! They were therefore nicely wrapped up and excluded from the "vulgar gaze of poor wicked mortals!" It was said that the leaves of the Bible were plates of gold, about 8 inches long, 6 wide, and one eighth of an inch thick, on which were engraved characters or hyeroglyphics. By placing the spectacles in a hat, and looking into it, Smith could (he said so, at least,) interpret these characters.

— "Golden Bible," Rochester Advertiser and Daily Telegraph (New York) (31 August 1829). Reprinted from Palmyra Freeman, 11 August 1829.

Can you tell me where was Joseph Smith in the late summer of 1826?

Is there any reason to believe he wasn't at home in Manchester? Nobody reported him being away that summer. Had he gone to Ohio presumably someone would have noticed.

[_Nevo]

Based on the speculative ideas promulgated by Brant Gardner that I have already read, I don't need to read anything more to know that in his six-volume set,

1. He will provide no empirical evidence at all that any of the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon ever existed.
2. He will not demonstrate any kind of coherent methodology that would be accepted by mainstream archaeology or any other field.

If you've already read Brant Gardner's arguments and concluded that they're worthless and not worth your time then my comment didn't apply to you. It was directed at those inclined to dismiss Sorenson and Gardner's work (and yes, Hardy's too) sight unseen. But apparently that doesn't describe anyone on this board.

[_Bazooka]

If you've already read Brant Gardner's arguments and concluded that they're worthless and not worth your time then my comment didn't apply to you. It was directed at those inclined to dismiss Sorenson and Gardner's work (and yes, Hardy's too) sight unseen. But apparently that doesn't describe anyone on this board.

If their work had value, from a Book of Mormon perspective, it would be available on LDS.org (or an official sub site).
The Apostles have also seen their work, but have apparently not paid it any further notice.
Why is that, do you think?

[_Nevo]

If their work had value, from a Book of Mormon perspective, it would be available on LDS.org (or an official sub site).

That strikes me as a pretty questionable assumption, but in any case Sorenson's work has appeared in official LDS publications.

I'm pretty sure the Brethren are mainly concerned with getting members to read the Book of Mormon itself and gain for themselves a spiritual witness of its truth. They're content to leave discussion of geography and archaeology to others.

[_Bazooka]

If their work had value, from a Book of Mormon perspective, it would be available on LDS.org (or an official sub site).

That strikes me as a pretty questionable assumption, but in any case Sorenson's work has appeared in official LDS publications.

I'm pretty sure the Brethren are mainly concerned with getting members to read the Book of Mormon itself and gain for themselves a spiritual witness of its truth. They're content to leave discussion of geography and archaeology to others.

1984? Seriously?

[_Roger]

Nevo:

...is the cave association with the hill Cumorah coincidental to Spalding's cave?

Yes.

Well there you go! Settled.

Probably this:

There is nothing in there about the use of a lever to move an unusual stone. Also, this is obviously not an official version and could easily be described as hostile. It may demonstrate that a vague story had been circulating about the plates' discovery as early as August, 1829, but it does not contain key details that Smith's later version does nor do we know where the facts are coming from.

Had he gone to Ohio presumably someone would have noticed.

And even if someone noticed you would likely not believe them.

The bottom line is that you reject testimony that supports S/R and I am open to it. I reject testimony that supports the authenticity of Joseph Smith as a prophet while you are open to it. Unless something major happens I don't see that changing any time soon.

But again, the point I was making earlier is that if we can agree that the parallels Kish cites on in this thread are at least noteworthy, then how much more noteworthy do they become when we learn that seemingly credible people had already made claims of a connection as early as 1832? That added factor is significant, in my opinion, and that is what the Spalding parallels have going for them. In fact, it's even a little more impressive than that because what we now can interpret as parallels between the discovery narratives did not even exist when the claims of a connection between the writings of Spalding and Smith were first made. Those claims were made based on the testimony of witnesses who claimed to have seen Spalding's original manuscript and claimed that it strongly resembled the Book of Mormon. But there was nothing to back up their claims except their honorable reputations.

Oddly enough, Joseph Smith himself would provide the best supporting evidence to back up their claims several years later. Coincidence? I think I know your answer. And I think I disagree. : )