The Book of Mormon: Man-Made or God-Given?

[_zerinus]

Because they use the text of Jacob 5 to describe what ancients of the time and place knew about olive cultivation?

(facepalm) Come on, man. You have to see how silly that is.

All the silliness is coming from the other side, evidently.

[Guest]

On the flip side, considering apples being stored in a cellar was a relatively common practice how do you think this makes more sense when transposed into an ancient middle-eastern culture prior to Hellenistic influence?

So your argument is that because North Americans in the time of Joseph Smith knew how to store apples, the Israelites didn’t know how to store their olives? So what do you think they did their olives once they had harvested​ them? You reckon they sat down and consumed them instantly? They didn’t leave some for tomorrow?

I am dazed. Has this person ever been in a country where olives are grown? Try picking a ripe olive off a tree and eating it - it is not an experience you will wish to repeat. It is simply too bitter to eat. Olives are not apples. Making olives useful as a food source requires considerable technical preparation - see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive#Tra ... and_curing

Jacob 5 gives no hint of the need for technical processing of the olive before consumption and what is more presents us with the ludicrous spectacle of the estate owner complaining that olives are bitter - well whoopy-doo! And the Pope is Catholic.

65 And as they begin to grow ye shall clear away the branches which bring forth bitter fruit, according to the strength of the good and the size thereof;

Do that, and you soon won't have any branches left.

More on the history of the olive here. It is further notable that Jacob presents the olive solely as a fruit that is eaten, and says nothing about the oil, which was in ancient times the major economic product of the olive tree:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/peopl ... ter-truth/

Oh yeah - and it looks like it was the Romans who first found out that you could eat olives without a very lengthy preparation, as well as get oil out of them. See bolded bit at the end. A bit late for Lehi and Co.

A luscious-looking olive, ripe off the sun-warmed tree, is horrible.

The substance that renders it essentially inedible is oleuropein, a phenolic compound bitter enough to shrivel your teeth. The bitterness is a protective mechanism for olives, useful for fending off invasive microorganisms and seed-crunching mammals. In the wild, olives are dispersed by birds, who avoid the bitterness issue by swallowing them whole.

Given the awfulness of the au naturel olive, you can’t help but wonder why early humans, after the first appalling bite, didn’t shun the olive tree forever.

The answer, of course, is olive oil. The olive is a drupe or stone fruit, like cherries, peaches, and plums, in which a fleshy outer covering surrounds a pit or stone, which in turn encases a seed. In the case of the olive, the outer flesh contains up to 30 percent oil—a concentration so impressive that the English word oil comes from the ancient Greek elaia, which means olive.

Archaeological and scientific evidence indicates that the olive tree (Olea europaea) was most likely first cultivated on the border between Turkey and Syria, spreading from there throughout the Mediterranean, to Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Greece, Italy, France, and Spain. People in the eastern Mediterranean have been grinding olives for oil the last 6,000-8,000 years. Olive oil was used for cooking, cosmetics, medicine, and in lamps. The original Olympic torch burned olive oil. The ancient city-state of Athens was said to have been named for the deity who gave Greek culture its greatest gift: Poseidon made a bid for the prize by producing the horse, but Athena won hands down by creating the olive tree.

The Old Testament is awash in references to olives, listed along with such desirables as honey, figs, grapes, and pomegranates. To destroy an enemy’s olive trees, in Old Testament days, was the ultimate act of war. “Except the vine,” wrote Pliny the Elder in the first century CE, “there is no plant which bears a fruit of as great importance as the olive.”


According to food writer Harold McGee, it was the Romans who most likely came up with the technique that put the olive fruit itself on the dinner table. Earlier people had discovered that olives could be debittered by soaking them in repeated changes of water, a painstaking process that took many months. This was somewhat improved by fermenting the olives in brine, which was marginally quicker, but the Romans found that supplementing the brine with lye from wood ashes (sodium hydroxide) cut the time required for producing an edible olive from months to hours. (See this Roman recipe for spiced olives.)

It is clear to anybody who reads Jacob that it was written by somebody who thought that olives were Biblical (which they are), knew the parable in Romans, but had probably never seen an olive in his entire life, let alone eaten one.

Now ... are there any obvious candidates? Hmmm ...

[_Lemmie]

Do you realize what you just asked?

You just asked me to prove to you something that isn't attested to in the actual non-BoM record.

...You haven't demonstrated anything more than that this is an anachronism still.

Again, the Book of Mormon asserts that the technique was known. If it is your contention that it wasn’t, the burden is on you to prove your case, not on us to disprove it.

zerinus needs to make up his mind.

The object of Mormon apologetics is not (or should not be) to prove that Mormonism is true; but to prove the critics wrong.

[_honorentheos]

Thanks for the links! My home library has a pretty hefty horticultural section due to my own interests in that area, so I especially enjoyed exploring the Botany of Desire site. It's very well done and quite fascinating. The paper from Purdue was a great read also. It's been fun learning about this tonight- your efforts are much appreciated-- by me at least if not by mentalgymnast! I think you gave him a knowledge-induced headache; he, as usual, was suddenly needed elsewhere just as you disproved his argument.

I'm glad it was interesting to someone besides myself.

In reading through Zerinus' responses it occurs to me that both he and MG appear to lack sufficient familiarity with horticulture to differentiate between broad cultivation and a specific practice (grafting). While someone with special interest in the subject like you have immediate understood the point being made both regarding olive grafting being potentially anachronistic and apple tree grafting being a potential source for the techniques described in the Book of Mormon.

Perhaps that says something about why they find Jacob 5 so compelling as evidence for the Book of Mormon?

[_honorentheos]

Do you realize what you just asked?

You just asked me to prove to you something that isn't attested to in the actual non-BoM record.

Go back and read your links. They comment time and again at how amazing the knowledge is that Zenos and his people demonstrate that others of the time might not have. Why? Maybe it's because others of the time outside of China didn't have the knowledge. They're assuming the Book of Zeno is real and then composing an argument. The tech did not exist at the time in a place that would have made its way into the Brass Plates. Have fun finding a non-LDS source that will back you up.

You haven't demonstrated anything more than that this is an anachronism still.

Again, the Book of Mormon asserts that the technique was known. If it is your contention that it wasn’t, the burden is on you to prove your case, not on us to disprove it.

Themis said it well when he pointed out that your argument requires I provide an exhaustive list of evidence while all that is required to prove olive tree grafting was a practice among the pre-exilic Israelites is one dependable source. Defending Jacob 5 should be easy. The standard you claim I must achieve is impossible to achieve as it maintains the lack of evidence is the problem.

That said, you must have missed this from the Purdue source I linked and quoted -

In several Talmudic parables, marriage is compared to grafting; thus we find that marriage of a scholar into a noble family is to be praised, comparable to a graft between high-quality grape cultivars; whereas marriage of a scholar into a family of illiterates is as unacceptable as a graft between quality grapes and wild grapes (Talmud Bavli Pesachim 49a). However, according to Talmudic sources (Yerushalmi Kilayim 1:7), the verse ‘‘Your sons like olive seedlings surrounding your table’’ (Psalms 128:3) is interpreted ‘‘Just like olive trees, which are never grafted, so your offspring will be flawless.’’

It's an interesting claim from the Talmud that olive trees would not have been grafted. The Kilayim is one of the post-Lehite exodus sources on the Israelite practices regarding horticulture that you see brought up and quoted to support Jacob 5 but it dates to the 5th c. BCE or later when it isn't in dispute that grafting as a horticulture technology would have become wide spread and is attested in multiple sources throughout the region.

Definitive? You can be the judge. But I read the score as follows: Ancient evidence for pre-exilic olive tree grafting by the Israelites that matches what is described in Jacob 5 for the reasons listed in Jacob 5: 0. Ancient evidence against the Israelites of the period practicing olive tree grafting: 1.

[_honorentheos]

I am dazed. Has this person ever been in a country where olives are grown? Try picking a ripe olive off a tree and eating it - it is not an experience you will wish to repeat. It is simply too bitter to eat. Olives are not apples.

...

It is clear to anybody who reads Jacob that it was written by somebody who thought that olives were Biblical (which they are), knew the parable in Romans, but had probably never seen an olive in his entire life, let alone eaten one.

Now ... are there any obvious candidates? Hmmm ...

Thanks for adding this to the discussion, Chap.

I tried to make a point earlier in the discussion about how parables also tell us something about the culture they come from, and your post helps illuminate multiple points where the language of Jacob 5 appears to be written by someone who is overlaying their own experience with a specific crop and it's products that doesn't actually align. When Smith describes the purpose of the master of the vineyard as laying up fruit to store for future seasons, he isn't using language describing olive processing or the storage of it's oil. He's using the language of someone farming grain. But it could be easy to see why someone familiar with apple cultivation would have used the same language to describe fruit storage. But someone specifically familiar with olive cultivation and production?

It just doesn't add up.

[_Xenophon]

Thanks for the olive lesson, honor! And to all the other posters that chimed in.

I think examining Jacob 5 any further presents another very unique challenge for Book of Mormon analysis. When there is debate about a biblical scripture, its meaning, its context, we go back to the source language. Take for instance the very interesting destruction of gender roles and the priesthood executed by MsJack and Chap on another thread. In order to prove their point, Chap and Jack were able to go back to the Greek and examine grammatical structure, sentence context and translation nuances. They were able to clearly highlight where gender bias was imprinted onto the text from translation as opposed to original intent. We lack all of that ability with the Book of Mormon. Assuming for just a moment that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, we lack the context necessary to really explore the subject.

How does one delve deeply into a set of scriptures where all the culture, context and nuance is inserted after the fact as opposed to being part of the original text?

[_Jersey Girl]

I saw your prior argument where you say if one can't show how Joseph Smith did it, then by default it came from god. That argument is simply preposterous. This is why I think you're here to just cause drama. You know posters here want good evidence and arguments based in reality but you bring this s$%t here anyway. Do you really believe that if one cannot show how Joseph Smith did his magic trick in creating the Book of Mormon, then by default it came from god? Is that what you really believe?

Joseph Smith claimed that it came from God. There were witnesses. First three witnesses, followed by eight witnesses. If you claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you, otherwise his claim stands.

We also have pretty good historical data regarding the case. We know about those who were involved, and their descriptions of the events, all of which support his account. Again, if you claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you, not on us. And I suggest you take your further bull-s$%t elsewhere.

With all that historical data that "we" have, how come you aren't aware that one of the first things that Joseph Smith Jr. did with the book that he believed was from God, was to try to sell the copyright to it?

[_I have a question]

The disingenuous nature of Tad Callister...

How might one counter this argument? Here is a list of questions that an honest seeker of truth might raise:

• Is there a single reference—just one—in Joseph’s journals or written correspondence suggesting he might have read or had conversations concerning any of these historical sources before translating the Book of Mormon? No.29

• Is there any evidence he visited the libraries where these books were supposedly located? No.

• Did Emma Smith, who was married to him, ever comment that he referred to any of these books before the Book of Mormon was translated? No.

• Is there any record that he had any of these books present when he translated the Book of Mormon? No.

How many nos does it take to expose the critics’ arguments as pure speculation—nothing more than sand castles that come crashing down when the first waves of honest questions appear on the scene.

Do the critics expect us to believe that Joseph searched out and studied all these resources on Native American life; inhaled the related conversations on the topic; winnowed out the irrelevant; organized the remainder into an intricate story involving hundreds of characters, numerous locations, and detailed war strategies; and then dictated it with perfect recollection, without any notes whatsoever—no outline, no three-by-five cards, nothing—a fact acknowledged even among the critics?30 And during it all, no one remembered him going to these libraries, bringing any such books home, having any conversations concerning this research, or making any diary entries to the same. Where, I ask you, is the hard evidence?

https://speeches.BYU.edu/talks/tad-r-ca ... god-given/

Okay Tad, let's apply that standard that you set.

Where is the hard evidence that the Book of Mormon is God-Given?

And...

Where is the hard evidence that the Book of Mormon isn't man-made fiction?

Of course Brothers Callister, mentalgymnast and zerinus have not provided any hard evidence. Why? Because there is no hard evidence. And using Callisters own logic...absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

[_deacon blues]

Off the top of my head- Problems with Joseph Smith's account:
1- It changed from the first account to the last account. Which one is true, or are they like the fish story, where the fish gets bigger with each succeeding telling- Or perhaps, the fish story where a illegitimate fish was used?
2- If the plates were real artifacts, what was their purpose? they weren't needed to translate. The only thing Joseph needed for that was the seer stone/U&T.
3-If Joseph really had Gold plates, not props, why was the box of cement and rock on the hill Cumorah never found?
4-If Joseph was reading an authentic translation off the seer stone/U&T for the 116 pages, why not just repeat it? Any attempt to change the 116 pages by its posessors would have been easily detectable. In fact, why did God tell Joseph about a plan to use the 116 pages to discredit the Book of Mormon, when such a plan never materialized?
5- Why did the grammar provided by the seer stone/U&T have to be corrected by the printer. Emma, (and maybe other witnesses) said Joseph actually spelled out difficult words.
6- When, as Emma reported, Joseph thought he was being deceived by the seer stone account of walls around Jerusalem, why did Joseph think he was being deceived? Didn't he have the plates, and the seerstones/U&T to assure himm otherwise.

I'm sure there are more, but, hi ho, hi ho, it's off to work I go. By the way Zerinius, thanks for being part of MD.