According ot WCCO.com, researchers have found new evidence of a secret code concealed on the Kensington Runestone, one of the most controversial pieces of Minnesota history.
The rock was found near Alexandria, Minn. a century ago. It bears an inscription that places Norwegians here in 1362.
Were Vikings exploring our land more than 100 years before Columbus? Or is the Kensington Runestone an elaborate hoax? New research suggests the rune stone is genuine, and a hidden code can prove it.
In reference to secret societies, the "L" and "U" ring a bell - reminds me of the square and compass of the Masons...
Umm, Columbus didn't explore "our" land! So the answer would always be yes.
QUOTE
Umm, Columbus didn't explore "our" land! So the answer would always be yes.
So you're one of them
Wow, that article raised some interesting thoughts with me... The mormons have their "book of mormon" which by their belief was written by Jesus when he came to America after his resurrection. Wouldn't that be interesting if it was tablets of the Templar bible? And the mormons were worshipping it? Anyone out there know where Joseph Smith lived? I am not that good at religious history.
I am going to find a burning cross on my front lawn now when I get home tonight......
I am going to find a burning cross on my front lawn now when I get home tonight......
COLUMBUS CAME TO AMERICA BY USE OF THE ZENO MAPS THEY WERE GIVEN TO HIM (A LONG STORY) BUT CAPT SINCLAIR OF SCOTTLAND A TEMPLAR WAS ON AMERICAN SHORES 100 YEARS BEFORE COLUMBUS EVIDENCE IS ON THE EAST COAST (COLUMBUS SAILS ALSO CARRIED THE TEMPLAR SIGN ON THEM)
I'm 35 and am a five generation Mormon. My ancesters were in the same neighborhood as Joseph Smith and joined within the first year of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" being organized in 1830. Here's some information on mormons.
The Book of Mormon wasn't written by Jesus when he came to the Americas. It is a compilation or Reader's Digest version of the history of the Nephite nation as written by the last living Nephite, Mormon.
Timeline
600 B.C.
Nephi, an Israelite leaves Jeruselem with his father Lehi and relatives. Lehi, a prophet, is told in vision that Jeruselem will be destroyed along with it's inhabitants. Lehi travels with his family to the Indian Ocean where Nephi is commanded to build a ship. Lehi's family boards the ship and is guided to "The Promised Land".
590 B.C.
The ship lands somewhere on the west coast of South America. Lehi dies and Nephi, his son, becomes the next prophet. They practice the Law of Moses and continue to worship with burnt offerings etc.
Nephi keeps records of his people.
When he is about to die he gives charge of them to his brother Jacob. These records are then kept and passed down from generation to generation until Mormon recieves them around 350 A.D.
34 A.D.
The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ visits the Nephites and establishes his church with 12 apostles etc. After many days of establishing his church Jesus left. There was then 200 years of peace with no wars or contentions. After approximately 200 years the people began having contentions and wars again. They split into two groups called the Nephites and the Lamanites.
350-400 B.C.
. Mormon then takes all the records which he says are many and writes an abbreviated version of the 1000 year history of his people. Mormon is the prophet of his time. Mormon was the prophet, leader, and general for the Nephites. Around 380 A.D. the Nephites and Lamanites had a final battle around present day Palmyra, New York where the Lamanites literally destroyed the Nephites.
400 A.D.
Mormon dies and in 420 B.C. his son Moroni finally buries this record which is a book with pages made of gold. He buries it in a stone box on the side of a hill which is near present day Palmyra, New York.
1824 Joseph Smith is visited by Moroni, a now resurrected being in his room at age 18 and is told where the record is to be found and that he would be responsible for traslating it from the ancient Nephite language (Reformed Egyptian) into English.
1829
The Book of Mormon is Published
1830
Joseph Smith establishes "The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" which he says is a restoration of all things lost and is the True church returned to earth.
Now, as far as Mormon's and Mason's. Joseph Smith was a master Mason as were most of the original founders and members of the mormon church. Our faith has many masonic symbols that are represented on our temples etc. I've studied the rituals of the master masons and can't find any similarities between there rituals and our worship in our temple. Our worship in our temples is focused completely on Jesus Christ and his relationship with us.
Joseph Smith did say that the Masons have some form of truth such as the Catholic church but as the Catholic church it has been corrupted and has lost it's original truth which was originally part of the church established by Christ himself.
For more specific information check out masonicmoroni.com
And don't expect a burning cross on your lawn any time soon. Mormons were burned out of their homes and driven into the rocky mountains. You might get a "Hot" plate of cookies with a note asking if you'd like the missionaries to come visit.
The Book of Mormon wasn't written by Jesus when he came to the Americas. It is a compilation or Reader's Digest version of the history of the Nephite nation as written by the last living Nephite, Mormon.
Timeline
600 B.C.
Nephi, an Israelite leaves Jeruselem with his father Lehi and relatives. Lehi, a prophet, is told in vision that Jeruselem will be destroyed along with it's inhabitants. Lehi travels with his family to the Indian Ocean where Nephi is commanded to build a ship. Lehi's family boards the ship and is guided to "The Promised Land".
590 B.C.
The ship lands somewhere on the west coast of South America. Lehi dies and Nephi, his son, becomes the next prophet. They practice the Law of Moses and continue to worship with burnt offerings etc.
Nephi keeps records of his people.
When he is about to die he gives charge of them to his brother Jacob. These records are then kept and passed down from generation to generation until Mormon recieves them around 350 A.D.
34 A.D.
The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ visits the Nephites and establishes his church with 12 apostles etc. After many days of establishing his church Jesus left. There was then 200 years of peace with no wars or contentions. After approximately 200 years the people began having contentions and wars again. They split into two groups called the Nephites and the Lamanites.
350-400 B.C.
. Mormon then takes all the records which he says are many and writes an abbreviated version of the 1000 year history of his people. Mormon is the prophet of his time. Mormon was the prophet, leader, and general for the Nephites. Around 380 A.D. the Nephites and Lamanites had a final battle around present day Palmyra, New York where the Lamanites literally destroyed the Nephites.
400 A.D.
Mormon dies and in 420 B.C. his son Moroni finally buries this record which is a book with pages made of gold. He buries it in a stone box on the side of a hill which is near present day Palmyra, New York.
1824 Joseph Smith is visited by Moroni, a now resurrected being in his room at age 18 and is told where the record is to be found and that he would be responsible for traslating it from the ancient Nephite language (Reformed Egyptian) into English.
1829
The Book of Mormon is Published
1830
Joseph Smith establishes "The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" which he says is a restoration of all things lost and is the True church returned to earth.
Now, as far as Mormon's and Mason's. Joseph Smith was a master Mason as were most of the original founders and members of the mormon church. Our faith has many masonic symbols that are represented on our temples etc. I've studied the rituals of the master masons and can't find any similarities between there rituals and our worship in our temple. Our worship in our temples is focused completely on Jesus Christ and his relationship with us.
Joseph Smith did say that the Masons have some form of truth such as the Catholic church but as the Catholic church it has been corrupted and has lost it's original truth which was originally part of the church established by Christ himself.
For more specific information check out masonicmoroni.com
And don't expect a burning cross on your lawn any time soon. Mormons were burned out of their homes and driven into the rocky mountains. You might get a "Hot" plate of cookies with a note asking if you'd like the missionaries to come visit.
QUOTE (Guest_Brad+May 14 2006, 11:00 PM)
The Book of Mormon wasn't written by Jesus when he came to the Americas. It is a compilation or Reader's Digest version of the history of the Nephite nation as written by the last living Nephite, Mormon.
Timeline
600 B.C.
Nephi, an Israelite leaves Jeruselem with his father Lehi and relatives. Lehi, a prophet, is told in vision that Jeruselem will be destroyed along with it's inhabitants. Lehi travels with his family to the Indian Ocean where Nephi is commanded to build a ship. Lehi's family boards the ship and is guided to "The Promised Land".
590 B.C.
The ship lands somewhere on the west coast of South America. Lehi dies and Nephi, his son, becomes the next prophet. They practice the Law of Moses and continue to worship with burnt offerings etc.
Nephi keeps records of his people.
When he is about to die he gives charge of them to his brother Jacob. These records are then kept and passed down from generation to generation until Mormon recieves them around 350 A.D.
34 A.D.
The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ visits the Nephites and establishes his church with 12 apostles etc. After many days of establishing his church Jesus left. There was then 200 years of peace with no wars or contentions. After approximately 200 years the people began having contentions and wars again. They split into two groups called the Nephites and the Lamanites.
350-400 B.C.
. Mormon then takes all the records which he says are many and writes an abbreviated version of the 1000 year history of his people. Mormon is the prophet of his time. Mormon was the prophet, leader, and general for the Nephites. Around 380 A.D. the Nephites and Lamanites had a final battle around present day Palmyra, New York where the Lamanites literally destroyed the Nephites.
400 A.D.
Mormon dies and in 420 B.C. his son Moroni finally buries this record which is a book with pages made of gold. He buries it in a stone box on the side of a hill which is near present day Palmyra, New York.
1824 Joseph Smith is visited by Moroni, a now resurrected being in his room at age 18 and is told where the record is to be found and that he would be responsible for traslating it from the ancient Nephite language (Reformed Egyptian) into English.
1829
The Book of Mormon is Published
1830
Joseph Smith establishes "The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" which he says is a restoration of all things lost and is the True church returned to earth.
Now, as far as Mormon's and Mason's. Joseph Smith was a master Mason as were most of the original founders and members of the mormon church. Our faith has many masonic symbols that are represented on our temples etc. I've studied the rituals of the master masons and can't find any similarities between there rituals and our worship in our temple. Our worship in our temples is focused completely on Jesus Christ and his relationship with us.
Joseph Smith did say that the Masons have some form of truth such as the Catholic church but as the Catholic church it has been corrupted and has lost it's original truth which was originally part of the church established by Christ himself.
For more specific information check out masonicmoroni.com
And don't expect a burning cross on your lawn any time soon. Mormons were burned out of their homes and driven into the rocky mountains. You might get a "Hot" plate of cookies with a note asking if you'd like the missionaries to come visit.
Guest_Brad,
It is extremely unfortunate the way some of the early Mormons were driven from their homes. What happened to them is in no way justified, but that doesn't make it legitimate. This has been covered here before:
Have you ever considered that what you believe is simply not credible? For a claim to be considered truth and factual, it should be able to be backed up by historical evidence.
Although Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church boldly claimed that his book of Mormon is the “most correct of any book on the earth,” (1) archeology has repeatedly failed to substantiate its claims about events that supposedly occurred long ago in the Americas.
I would encourage you to write the Smithsonian Institute and inquire about whether there is any evidence supporting the claims of Mormonism. You will be told as others have in unequivocal terms that its archaeologists see “no direct encounter between archeology of the New World and subject matter of the book.”
Authors John Ankenberg & John Weldon concluded in book on the topic, “In other words, no Book of Mormon cities have ever been located, no Book of Mormon person place, nation, or name has ever been found, no Book of Mormon inscriptions… nothing which demonstrates the Book of Mormon is anything other than myth or invention has ever been found.”(2)
The story is total different regarding The Bible and its archeology, you will find lots of support there.
Ref. (1) Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 8 Vol. 4:261,cited by Donald S. Tingle,17.
(2) John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on the Mormon Church.
Don't you find it a somewhat strange that not one single little piece of archaeological evidence has been acknowledged by the outside world that affirms the book of Mormon?
All this supposed 'history' does make sense:
Why isn't the terrain of Central America described?
Why is it that numerous LDS books and papers describe proposed Book of Mormon locations for cities and the "narrow neck of land"? No city has been identified as being Nephite, Lamanite, Jaredite, etc. For example, Zarahemla was occupied for hundreds of years, but we still don't have any real evidence of it ever existing. The Book of Mormon describes a time period from 2000 BC to 400 AD and millions of people. No city they occupied has yet to be found.
Why didn't any of the place names from the Book of Mormon still exist when Columbus arrived?
Where was the Hill Cumorah? Was it in New York or Central America? If it was in Central America, why hasn't it been found? If it was in New York, how did they move that quickly and where are all the remains?
Why don't gaps exist in the archaeological record of Mesoamerica if these missing people existed?
Did the Book of Mormon take place outside of Mesoamerica? The History of the Church records an incident from June, 1834 in which JS identified a skeleton found in an Indian burial mound in Illinois: ". . . the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph . . . who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains." (HOC 1948 ed., II: 79-80).
Why don't any archeologists theorize any Hebrew or Egyptian linkages or influences in Mesoamerica?
___________________________________________________
Now regarding the original question about the VIKINGS:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Article584.html
Timeline
600 B.C.
Nephi, an Israelite leaves Jeruselem with his father Lehi and relatives. Lehi, a prophet, is told in vision that Jeruselem will be destroyed along with it's inhabitants. Lehi travels with his family to the Indian Ocean where Nephi is commanded to build a ship. Lehi's family boards the ship and is guided to "The Promised Land".
590 B.C.
The ship lands somewhere on the west coast of South America. Lehi dies and Nephi, his son, becomes the next prophet. They practice the Law of Moses and continue to worship with burnt offerings etc.
Nephi keeps records of his people.
When he is about to die he gives charge of them to his brother Jacob. These records are then kept and passed down from generation to generation until Mormon recieves them around 350 A.D.
34 A.D.
The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ visits the Nephites and establishes his church with 12 apostles etc. After many days of establishing his church Jesus left. There was then 200 years of peace with no wars or contentions. After approximately 200 years the people began having contentions and wars again. They split into two groups called the Nephites and the Lamanites.
350-400 B.C.
. Mormon then takes all the records which he says are many and writes an abbreviated version of the 1000 year history of his people. Mormon is the prophet of his time. Mormon was the prophet, leader, and general for the Nephites. Around 380 A.D. the Nephites and Lamanites had a final battle around present day Palmyra, New York where the Lamanites literally destroyed the Nephites.
400 A.D.
Mormon dies and in 420 B.C. his son Moroni finally buries this record which is a book with pages made of gold. He buries it in a stone box on the side of a hill which is near present day Palmyra, New York.
1824 Joseph Smith is visited by Moroni, a now resurrected being in his room at age 18 and is told where the record is to be found and that he would be responsible for traslating it from the ancient Nephite language (Reformed Egyptian) into English.
1829
The Book of Mormon is Published
1830
Joseph Smith establishes "The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" which he says is a restoration of all things lost and is the True church returned to earth.
Now, as far as Mormon's and Mason's. Joseph Smith was a master Mason as were most of the original founders and members of the mormon church. Our faith has many masonic symbols that are represented on our temples etc. I've studied the rituals of the master masons and can't find any similarities between there rituals and our worship in our temple. Our worship in our temples is focused completely on Jesus Christ and his relationship with us.
Joseph Smith did say that the Masons have some form of truth such as the Catholic church but as the Catholic church it has been corrupted and has lost it's original truth which was originally part of the church established by Christ himself.
For more specific information check out masonicmoroni.com
And don't expect a burning cross on your lawn any time soon. Mormons were burned out of their homes and driven into the rocky mountains. You might get a "Hot" plate of cookies with a note asking if you'd like the missionaries to come visit.
Guest_Brad,
It is extremely unfortunate the way some of the early Mormons were driven from their homes. What happened to them is in no way justified, but that doesn't make it legitimate. This has been covered here before:
Have you ever considered that what you believe is simply not credible? For a claim to be considered truth and factual, it should be able to be backed up by historical evidence.
Although Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church boldly claimed that his book of Mormon is the “most correct of any book on the earth,” (1) archeology has repeatedly failed to substantiate its claims about events that supposedly occurred long ago in the Americas.
I would encourage you to write the Smithsonian Institute and inquire about whether there is any evidence supporting the claims of Mormonism. You will be told as others have in unequivocal terms that its archaeologists see “no direct encounter between archeology of the New World and subject matter of the book.”
Authors John Ankenberg & John Weldon concluded in book on the topic, “In other words, no Book of Mormon cities have ever been located, no Book of Mormon person place, nation, or name has ever been found, no Book of Mormon inscriptions… nothing which demonstrates the Book of Mormon is anything other than myth or invention has ever been found.”(2)
The story is total different regarding The Bible and its archeology, you will find lots of support there.
Ref. (1) Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 8 Vol. 4:261,cited by Donald S. Tingle,17.
(2) John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on the Mormon Church.
Don't you find it a somewhat strange that not one single little piece of archaeological evidence has been acknowledged by the outside world that affirms the book of Mormon?
All this supposed 'history' does make sense:
Why isn't the terrain of Central America described?
Why is it that numerous LDS books and papers describe proposed Book of Mormon locations for cities and the "narrow neck of land"? No city has been identified as being Nephite, Lamanite, Jaredite, etc. For example, Zarahemla was occupied for hundreds of years, but we still don't have any real evidence of it ever existing. The Book of Mormon describes a time period from 2000 BC to 400 AD and millions of people. No city they occupied has yet to be found.
Why didn't any of the place names from the Book of Mormon still exist when Columbus arrived?
Where was the Hill Cumorah? Was it in New York or Central America? If it was in Central America, why hasn't it been found? If it was in New York, how did they move that quickly and where are all the remains?
Why don't gaps exist in the archaeological record of Mesoamerica if these missing people existed?
Did the Book of Mormon take place outside of Mesoamerica? The History of the Church records an incident from June, 1834 in which JS identified a skeleton found in an Indian burial mound in Illinois: ". . . the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph . . . who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains." (HOC 1948 ed., II: 79-80).
Why don't any archeologists theorize any Hebrew or Egyptian linkages or influences in Mesoamerica?
___________________________________________________
Now regarding the original question about the VIKINGS:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Article584.html
You have to be kidding right?
The pre Hispanic South Americans are well known for their metalurgy. The Bank of Columbia has a well guarded display of over 30,000 gold artifacts designed out of gold plates which were as common as we use paper today. The museum is called the Museo del Oro.
http://www.banrep.gov.co/museo/esp/home.htm
One of it's several virtual musems can be found here to review the intricate work:
http://www.banrep.gov.co/museo/esp/expo_virtuales.htm#mar
Also Spain melted down thousands more artifacts during the New World congquest.
The problem people have in understanding the book of mormon (which I have read 3 times- and I have read the bible cover to cover once) is that the BofM is a compilation of the writings of a few people who supposedly lived in that era. The biggest thing I noticed while reading this material was that while the fashion of gold is extrodinary (as evidenced in today's musuems), only a few people actually kept an ongoing record that became what is now known as the BofM. I suspect that few people were actually literate in a written language. The mormons claim this to be "reformed egyptian". The fact that they could have been written on gold plates is obviously true. But were they? For now we wouldn't know for sure.
The fact that there is not evidence of preHispanic metalurgy in New York State where JSmith supposedly found the golden plates is not a deciding factor since the BofM describes a war fought in that area but the plates itself came from another area once inhabited by this Moroni character.
The idea of golden plates is quite credible. Where we have erred in my opinon is in archeology of the region around NY. Most recently a new section of a colonist era city was unearthed on the coast which only dated to the 1600-1700 period but no one knew it existed and it had to be unearthed. It could be that the remains of the Nephi-Lamanite peoples descibed have just not been unearthed in N. America (California-NY) because no one is seriously digging. But as far as Central and South America including the section of land in Panama (where at some points a person can turn around and see either ocean) digs have uncovered a great deal.
The narrow section of land descibed in the BofM perhaps is Panama.
All this aside, for JSmith to write the BofM and die over it a poor person, he would have to be honored far above any other fiction writer known todate for the creativity that it is. It would certainly go far beyond anything else out there that is "fiction". Religion surely squanders objectivity no matter the circumstance. Those that believe believe and those that are set against it..well..30,000+ gold artifacts in the National Bank of Columbia mean nothing.
Cheerio
The pre Hispanic South Americans are well known for their metalurgy. The Bank of Columbia has a well guarded display of over 30,000 gold artifacts designed out of gold plates which were as common as we use paper today. The museum is called the Museo del Oro.
http://www.banrep.gov.co/museo/esp/home.htm
One of it's several virtual musems can be found here to review the intricate work:
http://www.banrep.gov.co/museo/esp/expo_virtuales.htm#mar
Also Spain melted down thousands more artifacts during the New World congquest.
The problem people have in understanding the book of mormon (which I have read 3 times- and I have read the bible cover to cover once) is that the BofM is a compilation of the writings of a few people who supposedly lived in that era. The biggest thing I noticed while reading this material was that while the fashion of gold is extrodinary (as evidenced in today's musuems), only a few people actually kept an ongoing record that became what is now known as the BofM. I suspect that few people were actually literate in a written language. The mormons claim this to be "reformed egyptian". The fact that they could have been written on gold plates is obviously true. But were they? For now we wouldn't know for sure.
The fact that there is not evidence of preHispanic metalurgy in New York State where JSmith supposedly found the golden plates is not a deciding factor since the BofM describes a war fought in that area but the plates itself came from another area once inhabited by this Moroni character.
The idea of golden plates is quite credible. Where we have erred in my opinon is in archeology of the region around NY. Most recently a new section of a colonist era city was unearthed on the coast which only dated to the 1600-1700 period but no one knew it existed and it had to be unearthed. It could be that the remains of the Nephi-Lamanite peoples descibed have just not been unearthed in N. America (California-NY) because no one is seriously digging. But as far as Central and South America including the section of land in Panama (where at some points a person can turn around and see either ocean) digs have uncovered a great deal.
The narrow section of land descibed in the BofM perhaps is Panama.
All this aside, for JSmith to write the BofM and die over it a poor person, he would have to be honored far above any other fiction writer known todate for the creativity that it is. It would certainly go far beyond anything else out there that is "fiction". Religion surely squanders objectivity no matter the circumstance. Those that believe believe and those that are set against it..well..30,000+ gold artifacts in the National Bank of Columbia mean nothing.
Cheerio
Issachar,
Your really flexing your ignorance on this one. Before you go parroting the ideas of others you should at least check to see if they are right.
First, I'd bet the bank you've never read the BOM so how could you possibly have an intelligible opinion about it. Second archaelogical evidence has been found to corroborate the BOM.
Look here's the city of Laman
http://mayaruins.com/lamanai.html
http://www.belize-vacation.com/belize/lamanai.htm
But I'm sure a city named Lamanai which in hebrew means lamanite would not be good enough for ya( that is if you would even know evidence if you saw it due to your ignorance of the text) . By the way this is one of the only mayan cities with its original name intact and guess what it corroborates.
But the best archaelogical evidence comes from the Arabian Peninsula. In the Old world we have the starting point, Jerusalem, so we can trace their journey. Almost every location has been found. The river in a valley that runs continuosly to the sea. http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#lemuel
Then there's the city and cemetary of Nahom
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbm...252aWV3LnBocA==
And Bountiful at Khor Kharfot in Oman
http://www.ldsmag.com/bookofmormon/060118bountifulprint.html
All of those places where unknown in Smith's day and thought to be outlandishly outrageous until less than a decade or two ago.
So don't make blanket statements of which you have no idea of the facts. It'll make you get your foot caught in your mouth every time. And this is only a smattering of archaeological evidence that I could have listed.
Your really flexing your ignorance on this one. Before you go parroting the ideas of others you should at least check to see if they are right.
First, I'd bet the bank you've never read the BOM so how could you possibly have an intelligible opinion about it. Second archaelogical evidence has been found to corroborate the BOM.
Look here's the city of Laman
http://mayaruins.com/lamanai.html
http://www.belize-vacation.com/belize/lamanai.htm
But I'm sure a city named Lamanai which in hebrew means lamanite would not be good enough for ya( that is if you would even know evidence if you saw it due to your ignorance of the text) . By the way this is one of the only mayan cities with its original name intact and guess what it corroborates.
But the best archaelogical evidence comes from the Arabian Peninsula. In the Old world we have the starting point, Jerusalem, so we can trace their journey. Almost every location has been found. The river in a valley that runs continuosly to the sea. http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#lemuel
Then there's the city and cemetary of Nahom
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbm...252aWV3LnBocA==
And Bountiful at Khor Kharfot in Oman
http://www.ldsmag.com/bookofmormon/060118bountifulprint.html
All of those places where unknown in Smith's day and thought to be outlandishly outrageous until less than a decade or two ago.
So don't make blanket statements of which you have no idea of the facts. It'll make you get your foot caught in your mouth every time. And this is only a smattering of archaeological evidence that I could have listed.
Randy & warship,
I am really sorry, I do not mean to sound rude but you are wasting your time and mine also.
There was metallurgy in Mesoamerica, it just has absolutely NOTHING to do with the book of Mormon and there was no iron or steal work either.
Click on the following link:
Metalluragy in Americas
that is from a Mormon with a BS and MS in metallurgical engineering
No need for you to bet the bank, I have in fact read the whole book. I will give you my opinion of it if you wish, but below is something for you to read which was written by someone else.
The Book of Mormon
The "keystone" of the church is unquestionably the Book of Mormon. If the book can be shown to be a product of the 19th century, the church is then not what it claims to be. Archaeology in the old world continues to uncover physical evidence of biblical history. This is not the case with new world archaeology and the Book of Mormon. In fact, archeologists have stated that the last 2 decades have been devastating to Book of Mormon archeology. Mormon apologists are now resorting to "internal evidences" which are addressed elsewhere on this site since they realize there is no hard evidence at all for the Book of Mormon.
The most compelling evidence of the fictional nature of the Book of Mormon, from an archaeological view, is the things which have not been found. This part of my post is liberally copied from some documents on Mormon archeology.
Cities
Numerous books and papers, of which I have many, describe proposed Book of Mormon locations for cities and for the "narrow neck of land". All of them differ significantly. No city has yet been identified as being Nephite or Lamanite. This is significant in that Zarahemla was occupied for hundreds of years. Almost all geography mentioned in the Book of Mormon is in Mormon's abridgment of the plates. He would have known which locations would have been destroyed by the crucifixion. Therefore, the weak LDS apologist stance that the cities were destroyed is not valid. Remember we are talking about a time period from 2000 BC to 400 AD and millions of people and these cities they occupied have yet to be found.
A curious note is that when the Nephites landed in the Americas there were already millions of inhabitants in the land with large cities and infrastructure. Why are these peoples not mentioned?
Plant and Animal Life
There are four major crops mentioned in the Nephite records. These are:
• Barley (Mos 7:22, 9:9, Alma 11:7, 15)
• Figs (3 Ne 14:16)
• Grapes (2 Ne 15:2, 4, 3 Ne 14:16)
• Wheat (Mos 9:9, 3 Ne 18:18)
Archeological findings for the time period of the Book of Mormon:
• Barley NONE {an new world variety was found in Arizona and totally unrelated}
• Figs NONE
• Grapes NONE
• Wheat NONE
This negative score on the plant-life test should not be treated too lightly. An abundance of evidence supporting the existence of these plants has been found in other parts of the world of antiquity. The existence of numerous non-Book-of-Mormon plants (maize, lima beans, tomatoes, squash, etc.) has been supported by abundant archeological findings. Quoting from Tom Ferguson: "I (Tom Ferguson) participated in excavating a trench a the edge of the Grijalva river in which we found a ceramic vessel is a stratum dating to about 200 BC. The vessel contained lima beans that had been burned anciently and discarded--pot and beans--as too badly burned to be edible. And yet they were still in their pristine and perfect form. The beans were carbon-14 dated helping to place the whole stratum on a true time scale. Art portrayals in ceramics, murals, and sculptured works--of ancient plant life--are fairly commonplace. Thousands of archeological holes in the area proposed have given us not a fragment of evidence of the presence of the plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The holes include the great one dug by Edwin Shook at Tehuacan, Puebla, Mexico. He excavated a cave -- going back to 5000 BC., finding most of the major plants of the area. But no wheat, barley, figs or grapes."
I would like to note that wheat is very durable. Wheat in near perfect condition has been frequently found in the Egyptian pyramids dating back thousands of years. There is absolutely no evidence from any source that wheat was ever used in the ancient Americas. This alone brings the Book of Mormon into serious doubt.
Animal Life
This section is fun and Mormons are derided here for claiming horses and elephants were used by the ancients in America. This derision is for good reason, for they have never been found! There are more animals mentioned which reinforces the fictional nature of the Book of Mormon.
There are many animals mentioned in the Nephite records. These are:
• ***
• Bull
• Calf
• Cattle
• Cow
• Butter
• Milk
• Flocks
• Goat {the Nephites claimed to have found the domestic goat no less!}
• Herds
• Horse {the horse plays a major role in the Nephite and Lamanite societies}
• Ox
• Sheep {this was a major animal in the Book of Mormon}
• Sow
• Swine
• Elephants
Archeological findings for the time period of the Book of Mormon:
• ***..... NONE
• Bull.... NONE
• Calf.... NONE
• Cattle.. NONE
• Cow..... NONE
• Butter.. NONE
• Milk.... NONE
• Flocks.. NONE
• Goat.... NONE
• Herds... NONE
• Horse... NONE
• Ox...... NONE
• Sheep... NONE
• Sow..... NONE
• Swine... NONE
• Elephants (NONE contemporary with the Book of Mormon)
Again from Tom Ferguson: "Evidence of the foregoing animals has not appeared in any form -- ceramic representations, bones or skeletal remains, mural art, sculptured art or any other form. However... evidence has been found in several forms of the presence in the Book-of-Mormon times of other animals--deer, jaguars, dogs, turkeys etc. The zero score presents a problem that will not go away with the ignoring of it. Non-LDS scholars of first magnitude, some who want to be our friends, think we have real trouble here. That evidence of the ancient existence of these animals is not elusive is found in the fact that proof of their existence in the ancient old-world is abundant. The absence of such evidence...is distressing and significant, in my view."
Metals
I will be briefer on the metals, but this is fascinating to me as I have both a BS and MS in metallurgical engineering.
Evidence supporting the existence of these metals, skills and products...at this time as follows:
• Bellows....... NONE
• Brass......... NONE
• Breast Plates. NONE
• Chains........ NONE
• Copper........ NONE
• Iron.......... NONE
• Ore (mining).. NONE (this is very significant, no evidence of mining activities)
• Plows......... NONE
• Silver........ NONE
• Swords........ NONE (none that are metal)
• Steel......... NONE
Again from Tom Ferguson: "Metallurgy does not appear in the region until about the 9th century A.D. ...I regard this as a major weakness in the armor of our proponents and friends". ...Art does not portray the existence of metallurgical products or metallurgical activity. Again, the score is zero.
There are so many items archeologically, historically and using textual criticism to show the Book of Mormon to be fictional, that anyone willing to do a little study will reach the same conclusion.
There is a lot of Mormon mythology that states that the Book of Mormon has been "proven" by such and such a find or the uncovering of a city. When investigated ALL of these claims have been shown to be false. The myths are circulated in the Mormon culture by Sacrament meeting talks, Priesthood meeting discussions and in LDS social circles so much, that Mormons who do not investigate the source of the information, believe the stories to be true. They use these false stories to "strengthen their testimonies". Please see section on Problems with believing in Mormonism / Mormon Apologetics on this site for a letter from the Smithsonian which verifies these statements.
Source click here:
Mormon
perhaps you need something beyond the lds. Good luck.
lds-forgive
I am really sorry, I do not mean to sound rude but you are wasting your time and mine also.
There was metallurgy in Mesoamerica, it just has absolutely NOTHING to do with the book of Mormon and there was no iron or steal work either.
Click on the following link:
Metalluragy in Americas
that is from a Mormon with a BS and MS in metallurgical engineering
QUOTE
First, I'd bet the bank you've never read the BOM so how could you possibly have an intelligible opinion about it.
No need for you to bet the bank, I have in fact read the whole book. I will give you my opinion of it if you wish, but below is something for you to read which was written by someone else.
The Book of Mormon
The "keystone" of the church is unquestionably the Book of Mormon. If the book can be shown to be a product of the 19th century, the church is then not what it claims to be. Archaeology in the old world continues to uncover physical evidence of biblical history. This is not the case with new world archaeology and the Book of Mormon. In fact, archeologists have stated that the last 2 decades have been devastating to Book of Mormon archeology. Mormon apologists are now resorting to "internal evidences" which are addressed elsewhere on this site since they realize there is no hard evidence at all for the Book of Mormon.
The most compelling evidence of the fictional nature of the Book of Mormon, from an archaeological view, is the things which have not been found. This part of my post is liberally copied from some documents on Mormon archeology.
Cities
Numerous books and papers, of which I have many, describe proposed Book of Mormon locations for cities and for the "narrow neck of land". All of them differ significantly. No city has yet been identified as being Nephite or Lamanite. This is significant in that Zarahemla was occupied for hundreds of years. Almost all geography mentioned in the Book of Mormon is in Mormon's abridgment of the plates. He would have known which locations would have been destroyed by the crucifixion. Therefore, the weak LDS apologist stance that the cities were destroyed is not valid. Remember we are talking about a time period from 2000 BC to 400 AD and millions of people and these cities they occupied have yet to be found.
A curious note is that when the Nephites landed in the Americas there were already millions of inhabitants in the land with large cities and infrastructure. Why are these peoples not mentioned?
Plant and Animal Life
There are four major crops mentioned in the Nephite records. These are:
• Barley (Mos 7:22, 9:9, Alma 11:7, 15)
• Figs (3 Ne 14:16)
• Grapes (2 Ne 15:2, 4, 3 Ne 14:16)
• Wheat (Mos 9:9, 3 Ne 18:18)
Archeological findings for the time period of the Book of Mormon:
• Barley NONE {an new world variety was found in Arizona and totally unrelated}
• Figs NONE
• Grapes NONE
• Wheat NONE
This negative score on the plant-life test should not be treated too lightly. An abundance of evidence supporting the existence of these plants has been found in other parts of the world of antiquity. The existence of numerous non-Book-of-Mormon plants (maize, lima beans, tomatoes, squash, etc.) has been supported by abundant archeological findings. Quoting from Tom Ferguson: "I (Tom Ferguson) participated in excavating a trench a the edge of the Grijalva river in which we found a ceramic vessel is a stratum dating to about 200 BC. The vessel contained lima beans that had been burned anciently and discarded--pot and beans--as too badly burned to be edible. And yet they were still in their pristine and perfect form. The beans were carbon-14 dated helping to place the whole stratum on a true time scale. Art portrayals in ceramics, murals, and sculptured works--of ancient plant life--are fairly commonplace. Thousands of archeological holes in the area proposed have given us not a fragment of evidence of the presence of the plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The holes include the great one dug by Edwin Shook at Tehuacan, Puebla, Mexico. He excavated a cave -- going back to 5000 BC., finding most of the major plants of the area. But no wheat, barley, figs or grapes."
I would like to note that wheat is very durable. Wheat in near perfect condition has been frequently found in the Egyptian pyramids dating back thousands of years. There is absolutely no evidence from any source that wheat was ever used in the ancient Americas. This alone brings the Book of Mormon into serious doubt.
Animal Life
This section is fun and Mormons are derided here for claiming horses and elephants were used by the ancients in America. This derision is for good reason, for they have never been found! There are more animals mentioned which reinforces the fictional nature of the Book of Mormon.
There are many animals mentioned in the Nephite records. These are:
• ***
• Bull
• Calf
• Cattle
• Cow
• Butter
• Milk
• Flocks
• Goat {the Nephites claimed to have found the domestic goat no less!}
• Herds
• Horse {the horse plays a major role in the Nephite and Lamanite societies}
• Ox
• Sheep {this was a major animal in the Book of Mormon}
• Sow
• Swine
• Elephants
Archeological findings for the time period of the Book of Mormon:
• ***..... NONE
• Bull.... NONE
• Calf.... NONE
• Cattle.. NONE
• Cow..... NONE
• Butter.. NONE
• Milk.... NONE
• Flocks.. NONE
• Goat.... NONE
• Herds... NONE
• Horse... NONE
• Ox...... NONE
• Sheep... NONE
• Sow..... NONE
• Swine... NONE
• Elephants (NONE contemporary with the Book of Mormon)
Again from Tom Ferguson: "Evidence of the foregoing animals has not appeared in any form -- ceramic representations, bones or skeletal remains, mural art, sculptured art or any other form. However... evidence has been found in several forms of the presence in the Book-of-Mormon times of other animals--deer, jaguars, dogs, turkeys etc. The zero score presents a problem that will not go away with the ignoring of it. Non-LDS scholars of first magnitude, some who want to be our friends, think we have real trouble here. That evidence of the ancient existence of these animals is not elusive is found in the fact that proof of their existence in the ancient old-world is abundant. The absence of such evidence...is distressing and significant, in my view."
Metals
I will be briefer on the metals, but this is fascinating to me as I have both a BS and MS in metallurgical engineering.
Evidence supporting the existence of these metals, skills and products...at this time as follows:
• Bellows....... NONE
• Brass......... NONE
• Breast Plates. NONE
• Chains........ NONE
• Copper........ NONE
• Iron.......... NONE
• Ore (mining).. NONE (this is very significant, no evidence of mining activities)
• Plows......... NONE
• Silver........ NONE
• Swords........ NONE (none that are metal)
• Steel......... NONE
Again from Tom Ferguson: "Metallurgy does not appear in the region until about the 9th century A.D. ...I regard this as a major weakness in the armor of our proponents and friends". ...Art does not portray the existence of metallurgical products or metallurgical activity. Again, the score is zero.
There are so many items archeologically, historically and using textual criticism to show the Book of Mormon to be fictional, that anyone willing to do a little study will reach the same conclusion.
There is a lot of Mormon mythology that states that the Book of Mormon has been "proven" by such and such a find or the uncovering of a city. When investigated ALL of these claims have been shown to be false. The myths are circulated in the Mormon culture by Sacrament meeting talks, Priesthood meeting discussions and in LDS social circles so much, that Mormons who do not investigate the source of the information, believe the stories to be true. They use these false stories to "strengthen their testimonies". Please see section on Problems with believing in Mormonism / Mormon Apologetics on this site for a letter from the Smithsonian which verifies these statements.
Source click here:
Mormon
perhaps you need something beyond the lds. Good luck.
lds-forgive
QUOTE (Title+)
Unlocking Minnesota's 'DaVinci Code'
Just a bunch of people trying to change history.
Just a bunch of people trying to change history.
Issachar,
I'm glad you know how to cut and paste. You said there was no archeological evidence, archaelogical evidence was shown to you and you made no attempt to interact with it but made the same assertions . We all know not every cultural item mentioned has been found but the list of hits has grown overtime enough so that your precious Smithsonian letter had to be changed. So which letter do you want me to read, the one that was to outdated and so full of errors due to new archaeological evidence that has been found in support of the BOM that it had to be scapped and a new one issued. Or do you want me to read the new one which they do not even mention any evidence. Since your such a erudite on metal, I suppose I don't need to tell you about meteoric iron that was used in the region. Or I could ignore anything you have to say and list the same evidence again, as you did, or a new list of evidence. I know you critics prefer to stick your head in the sand when we present evidence and then continue to rehash an ever shortening list of lack of evidence. Many of the things you posted, excuse me...cut and pasted, are simply wrong. Such as old world Barley has been found here in the new world which dates long before the conquistadors. Hieroglyphs of elephant headresses are seen in Mayan carvings. How did they represent animals theyve never seen? I could list more but I will say to you what I said the first time, and that is that if you are going to be a parrot at least check to make sure what youre parroting is correct.
I'm glad you know how to cut and paste. You said there was no archeological evidence, archaelogical evidence was shown to you and you made no attempt to interact with it but made the same assertions
. We all know not every cultural item mentioned has been found but the list of hits has grown overtime enough so that your precious Smithsonian letter had to be changed. So which letter do you want me to read, the one that was to outdated and so full of errors due to new archaeological evidence that has been found in support of the BOM that it had to be scapped and a new one issued. Or do you want me to read the new one which they do not even mention any evidence. Since your such a erudite on metal, I suppose I don't need to tell you about meteoric iron that was used in the region. Or I could ignore anything you have to say and list the same evidence again, as you did, or a new list of evidence. I know you critics prefer to stick your head in the sand when we present evidence and then continue to rehash an ever shortening list of lack of evidence. Many of the things you posted, excuse me...cut and pasted, are simply wrong. Such as old world Barley has been found here in the new world which dates long before the conquistadors. Hieroglyphs of elephant headresses are seen in Mayan carvings. How did they represent animals theyve never seen? I could list more but I will say to you what I said the first time, and that is that if you are going to be a parrot at least check to make sure what youre parroting is correct.
QUOTE (warship+Jun 29 2006, 11:06 PM)
You said there was no archeological evidence, archaelogical evidence was shown to you and you made no attempt to interact with it but made the same assertions
warship,
Ok about your ‘archeology’
Lamanai is not a hebrew word, it is a Mayan word for submerged crocodiles
Aside from conjecture with mormonism, there is not physical evidence of the existence of the Lamanites in the archaeological record. The writing system, mathematics, architecture, agriculture, and technology of the Mesoamerican peoples is utterly alien to that of the ancient Hebrews with no seeming linear timeline of evolution between the two cultural states.
Recent studies of the writing system and mythology of Mesoamerica indicates origin of these cultural systems pre-dates the arrival of Nephi according to the book of Mormon by at least four centuries. The lack of an iron age, or even a bronze age in Mesoamerica, indicates a lack of technology transfer from even the very ancient Western world. This also would seemingly include the lack of horses, sheep, cows, any strain of wheat, or any derivitaves of such things being in evidence in the New World until the Conquest of the 16th Century.
Likewise, some cultural systems indigeneous to Mesoamerica such as the numerical system and calendar, were utterly superior to anything available in Western or Near Eastern antiquity, and there is no archaeological record of progression from one to the other.
About your 3rd one, you have a german archeological team excavating a pagan site and and find reference to a Nihm. You then post as archeological evidence an article from Brigham Young U stating it was “apparently a variant of Nahom” that another Mormon by the name of Brown concluded in the same article that it "very probably" referred to the Nahom of which Nephi wrote. The same article quotes another Mormon by the name of Givens describing it, “… as "the first actual archaeological evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon".
And you call that evidence? The rest of the world will call that a long stretch of the imagination. If Givens says that is the ‘first actual archeological evidence’, I guess they themselves are throwing out all the false ties they have tried so hard for so long to make with the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
About your 4th link, so they sent some Mormons over to take pictures of a pretty beach and land with trees and say this must be is where Nephi’s ship you actually believe them. I could go take a picture of a nice beach in the Caribbean and say, “this is where Columbus landed.” And it would still prove nothing. The only difference is, Columbus was an actual person that actually left the old world and actually landed in the new world.
The letters from the Smithsonian still stand. I will be out of pocket for the weekend but post another article for you again:
Updated 12/23/95 Includes the Smithsonian letter on the Book of Mormon
I found something which was refreshing to read from an LDS member, Dr. Stephen E. Thompson Ph.D. an Egyptologist from Brown University. He talks about LDS apologetics - how LDS members defend the Book of Abraham. This is from a 1993 Sunstone Symposium. In the second quote, he is referring to the book "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" by Charles Larson, which most Mormons would consider an 'anti-Mormon' book. The book "By His.." is excellent and shows how Joseph Smith made the whole thing up and it shoots down every defense LDS apologists have been able to create out of desperation to save the Book of Abraham.
This first quote is on how the LDS book "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" has outright deception about the Book of Abraham. "In the entry on the facsimiles from the Book of Abraham in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, we are told that the prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practice. This is truly remarkable statement in view of the fact that those Egyptologists who have commented on Joseph's interpretations of the facsimiles have stated emphatically that his interpretations are not correct from the perspective of the Egyptologist who attempts to interpret Egyptian religious literature and iconography as he or she believes the ancient Egyptians themselves would have.... In my opinion, none of these figures can be made to fit what Smith believed them to be... their interpretation is limited to funerary purposes." Summary: They, the papyri, have nothing to do with Abraham and were written 1500 years after Abraham.
This second quote is on the book "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus". "In my opinion, it's the best source to go to if you want to know what's been going on with the Book of Abraham in the church. I mean, he (Larson) has a pretty good summary of all the types of approaches that have been made. He does a pretty good job of explaining what they are, what the papyri are... And people worry about the accuracy, is this book accurate or not. Well I'll tell you, he's far more accurate than anything Hugh Nibley ever wrote on the subject, okay... Nothing that's been written from an apologetic (LDS) point of view comes close to it in accuracy. Because frankly, in my opinion, when you start doing apologetics you've got to twist the evidence. That what we (LDS) have just doesn't support us. You've got to do something to it. You've got to manipulate it, you've got to move it...and stuff like that. So, that's my feeling on the book"
The deception in the Encyclopedia is exactly like the stuff I have been reading on the Watchtower history, which came out a short time ago. It too is full of inaccuracies and rewritten history. It is amazing how these groups work and are not shy about deceiving their members or prospective members.
Information from the
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution Washington, D.C. 20560
Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Smithsonians Department of Anthropology.
The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archaeological research and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect. Accurate information about the Smithsonians position is contained in the enclosed Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon, which was prepared to respond to the numerous inquiries that the Smithsonian receives on this topic.
Because the Smithsonian regards the unauthorized use of its name to disseminate inaccurate information as unlawful, we would appreciate your assistance in providing us with the names of any individuals who are misusing the Smithsonians name. Please address any correspondence to:
Public Information Officer
Department of Anthropology
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution, MRC 112
Washington, DC 20560
Prepared by
THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON
1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.
2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World--probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age--in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen, who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around 1000 A.D. and then settled in Greenland. There is no evidence to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.
4. None of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre- Columbian times. This is one of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific premise that contacts with Old World civilizations, if they occurred, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, or camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, bat all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time the early big game hunters traveled across the Americas.)
5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteroic iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre- Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.
6. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asia and the Near East.
7. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.
8. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.
9. There are copies of the Book of Mormon in the library of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution .
warship,
Ok about your ‘archeology’
Lamanai is not a hebrew word, it is a Mayan word for submerged crocodiles
Aside from conjecture with mormonism, there is not physical evidence of the existence of the Lamanites in the archaeological record. The writing system, mathematics, architecture, agriculture, and technology of the Mesoamerican peoples is utterly alien to that of the ancient Hebrews with no seeming linear timeline of evolution between the two cultural states.
Recent studies of the writing system and mythology of Mesoamerica indicates origin of these cultural systems pre-dates the arrival of Nephi according to the book of Mormon by at least four centuries. The lack of an iron age, or even a bronze age in Mesoamerica, indicates a lack of technology transfer from even the very ancient Western world. This also would seemingly include the lack of horses, sheep, cows, any strain of wheat, or any derivitaves of such things being in evidence in the New World until the Conquest of the 16th Century.
Likewise, some cultural systems indigeneous to Mesoamerica such as the numerical system and calendar, were utterly superior to anything available in Western or Near Eastern antiquity, and there is no archaeological record of progression from one to the other.
About your 3rd one, you have a german archeological team excavating a pagan site and and find reference to a Nihm. You then post as archeological evidence an article from Brigham Young U stating it was “apparently a variant of Nahom” that another Mormon by the name of Brown concluded in the same article that it "very probably" referred to the Nahom of which Nephi wrote. The same article quotes another Mormon by the name of Givens describing it, “… as "the first actual archaeological evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon".
And you call that evidence? The rest of the world will call that a long stretch of the imagination. If Givens says that is the ‘first actual archeological evidence’, I guess they themselves are throwing out all the false ties they have tried so hard for so long to make with the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
About your 4th link, so they sent some Mormons over to take pictures of a pretty beach and land with trees and say this must be is where Nephi’s ship you actually believe them. I could go take a picture of a nice beach in the Caribbean and say, “this is where Columbus landed.” And it would still prove nothing. The only difference is, Columbus was an actual person that actually left the old world and actually landed in the new world.
The letters from the Smithsonian still stand. I will be out of pocket for the weekend but post another article for you again:
Updated 12/23/95 Includes the Smithsonian letter on the Book of Mormon
I found something which was refreshing to read from an LDS member, Dr. Stephen E. Thompson Ph.D. an Egyptologist from Brown University. He talks about LDS apologetics - how LDS members defend the Book of Abraham. This is from a 1993 Sunstone Symposium. In the second quote, he is referring to the book "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" by Charles Larson, which most Mormons would consider an 'anti-Mormon' book. The book "By His.." is excellent and shows how Joseph Smith made the whole thing up and it shoots down every defense LDS apologists have been able to create out of desperation to save the Book of Abraham.
This first quote is on how the LDS book "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" has outright deception about the Book of Abraham. "In the entry on the facsimiles from the Book of Abraham in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, we are told that the prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practice. This is truly remarkable statement in view of the fact that those Egyptologists who have commented on Joseph's interpretations of the facsimiles have stated emphatically that his interpretations are not correct from the perspective of the Egyptologist who attempts to interpret Egyptian religious literature and iconography as he or she believes the ancient Egyptians themselves would have.... In my opinion, none of these figures can be made to fit what Smith believed them to be... their interpretation is limited to funerary purposes." Summary: They, the papyri, have nothing to do with Abraham and were written 1500 years after Abraham.
This second quote is on the book "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus". "In my opinion, it's the best source to go to if you want to know what's been going on with the Book of Abraham in the church. I mean, he (Larson) has a pretty good summary of all the types of approaches that have been made. He does a pretty good job of explaining what they are, what the papyri are... And people worry about the accuracy, is this book accurate or not. Well I'll tell you, he's far more accurate than anything Hugh Nibley ever wrote on the subject, okay... Nothing that's been written from an apologetic (LDS) point of view comes close to it in accuracy. Because frankly, in my opinion, when you start doing apologetics you've got to twist the evidence. That what we (LDS) have just doesn't support us. You've got to do something to it. You've got to manipulate it, you've got to move it...and stuff like that. So, that's my feeling on the book"
The deception in the Encyclopedia is exactly like the stuff I have been reading on the Watchtower history, which came out a short time ago. It too is full of inaccuracies and rewritten history. It is amazing how these groups work and are not shy about deceiving their members or prospective members.
Information from the
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution Washington, D.C. 20560
Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Smithsonians Department of Anthropology.
The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archaeological research and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect. Accurate information about the Smithsonians position is contained in the enclosed Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon, which was prepared to respond to the numerous inquiries that the Smithsonian receives on this topic.
Because the Smithsonian regards the unauthorized use of its name to disseminate inaccurate information as unlawful, we would appreciate your assistance in providing us with the names of any individuals who are misusing the Smithsonians name. Please address any correspondence to:
Public Information Officer
Department of Anthropology
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution, MRC 112
Washington, DC 20560
Prepared by
THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON
1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.
2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World--probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age--in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen, who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around 1000 A.D. and then settled in Greenland. There is no evidence to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.
4. None of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre- Columbian times. This is one of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific premise that contacts with Old World civilizations, if they occurred, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, or camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, bat all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time the early big game hunters traveled across the Americas.)
5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteroic iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre- Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.
6. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asia and the Near East.
7. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.
8. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.
9. There are copies of the Book of Mormon in the library of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution .
Ishtar
>>warship,
Ok about your ‘archeology’
>>Lamanai is not a hebrew word, it is a Mayan word for submerged crocodiles
First I sent you the links...do you not recall? Second, I didn't say that lam'an nai was a hebrew word...I said lam'an nai translated into hebrew was lamanite...like when aeropuerto in Spanish translates to airport in English; aeropuerto is not an English word but it does translate into English. Hope that helps.
Your second paragraph shows you don't have a great understandidng of the BOM and what it purports to be, though I do congratulate you for having read it. The BOM to a lot of people is like shakespeare hor highschool kids, they can read through it... but do they realllly understand it all? The record in no way says the Nephites are the only people there, or the dominant force, in fact it demonstates they are a minority. The BOm in no way says that the Amerindians are all their descendants or that no one else was there when they arrived. These are straw man arguments created by critics who eigther don't understand the BOM or who are deliberately misleading. Metal was used in the bom time period. Copper axe (closer to bronze actually) heads have been found as early as 1000bc. Calendric similarities do exist. The BOM uses baktuns and katuns, maya measurements of time, the first being a 400 year block and the second being a 20 year increment of which 20 fit into one baktun. The maya also plot stars with a line dot method that ancient hebrews used. I have to say again that you shouldn't go spouting off blanket statements of which you know nothing about.
No one will ever know what the ancient name for NHM was and Nahom is as good a guess as any other, especially as it fits the description and place. Perhaps the findings in Arabia wouldn't be such great evidence if critics hadnt harped for over a century that there was no river that ran to the sea and no bountiful spot on the Arabian coast and no city named Nahom. Now that we have every place mentioned you want to say it is luck. Even the name Shazer is arabic for thicket of woods. It is the only other place named besides the others which I have showed are there where the critics said for over a century they never could be and where the bOM said they always were. I myself even found a chiasmus for the place name Shazer.
Which brings me to another good point. There are other ways of testing the a record to prove its authenticity besides using archaeology( a very incomplete record of which 80% of the work that has been done is in the classic maya era or after. The bOm predates this period of which time period they have done little excavating).
What about the ancient arabic poetry qasidas in the BOM. That form of poetry was unknown in 1830. What about chiasmus which was not understood in 1830. I have even found a 600 word chiasmus, how's that possible? What about the BOM's intricate and abundant correspondence with the Popul vuh and the works of Ixtlilxochitl that give histories of Mesoamerica and were not available to JS or anyone in America or the English speaking world in 1830.
The letter from the Smithsonian so does not stand so much that they had to scrap their first letter(which is the one you place second and is not valid and they do not use it anymore) bc their own research contadicted their earlier statements, and they had to issue the new one (which you placed first) which says nothing about anything other than the BOm is a religious document and that the Smithsonian doesnt use it..whoopty doo, exactly what I said to begin with.
The stuff about the POGP I'm not going to respond to bc it is a different debate and junk that people throw out to dismiss the bOM when it has nothing to do with the BOM. Besides your arguments are again all inaccurate and I don't feel like going into it. If you want a separate debate about that I'd be willing I guess.
And if people like something and it gives them hope...who are you to shoot them down? Just bc some people do not have the capability to argue the BOm based on intellectual evidence the way we are now doesnt give you the right to go bashing them. I was trying to defend Randy who thought you were confused and was trying to help you bc he didn't see that you were just trying to lure in someone to heap your antimormon frustrations on.
I could say, show me the trumpets that blasted down the walls of Jericho..oh you can't...than the bible is false. Or I could say, the bible mentions corn 100 times or more...but there was never any corn in the Old world until the discovery of the New World so the bible is a lie.
Or, I cannot see a wave function so science is a lie.
Or, I do not see cavemen walking around so science is a lie.
Or, I dont see any missing links so evolution is a lie.
Or, that the best examples of documented evolution are actually devolutions so Evolution Theory is a lie.
Or, I can't see the big band so science is a lie
Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc
Its quite simple, and I could undercut any belief at all that youre will willing to put up on the chopping block. What do you believe? I'm sure I could make anything you believe look ridiculous.
Including a farm boy with a third grade education wrote such a complex book with multiple types of literature, even types of lterature (like apocolyptic and poetry) that were'nt even known to exist.
>>warship,
Ok about your ‘archeology’
>>Lamanai is not a hebrew word, it is a Mayan word for submerged crocodiles
First I sent you the links...do you not recall? Second, I didn't say that lam'an nai was a hebrew word...I said lam'an nai translated into hebrew was lamanite...like when aeropuerto in Spanish translates to airport in English; aeropuerto is not an English word but it does translate into English. Hope that helps.
Your second paragraph shows you don't have a great understandidng of the BOM and what it purports to be, though I do congratulate you for having read it. The BOM to a lot of people is like shakespeare hor highschool kids, they can read through it... but do they realllly understand it all? The record in no way says the Nephites are the only people there, or the dominant force, in fact it demonstates they are a minority. The BOm in no way says that the Amerindians are all their descendants or that no one else was there when they arrived. These are straw man arguments created by critics who eigther don't understand the BOM or who are deliberately misleading. Metal was used in the bom time period. Copper axe (closer to bronze actually) heads have been found as early as 1000bc. Calendric similarities do exist. The BOM uses baktuns and katuns, maya measurements of time, the first being a 400 year block and the second being a 20 year increment of which 20 fit into one baktun. The maya also plot stars with a line dot method that ancient hebrews used. I have to say again that you shouldn't go spouting off blanket statements of which you know nothing about.
No one will ever know what the ancient name for NHM was and Nahom is as good a guess as any other, especially as it fits the description and place. Perhaps the findings in Arabia wouldn't be such great evidence if critics hadnt harped for over a century that there was no river that ran to the sea and no bountiful spot on the Arabian coast and no city named Nahom. Now that we have every place mentioned you want to say it is luck. Even the name Shazer is arabic for thicket of woods. It is the only other place named besides the others which I have showed are there where the critics said for over a century they never could be and where the bOM said they always were. I myself even found a chiasmus for the place name Shazer.
Which brings me to another good point. There are other ways of testing the a record to prove its authenticity besides using archaeology( a very incomplete record of which 80% of the work that has been done is in the classic maya era or after. The bOm predates this period of which time period they have done little excavating).
What about the ancient arabic poetry qasidas in the BOM. That form of poetry was unknown in 1830. What about chiasmus which was not understood in 1830. I have even found a 600 word chiasmus, how's that possible? What about the BOM's intricate and abundant correspondence with the Popul vuh and the works of Ixtlilxochitl that give histories of Mesoamerica and were not available to JS or anyone in America or the English speaking world in 1830.
The letter from the Smithsonian so does not stand so much that they had to scrap their first letter(which is the one you place second and is not valid and they do not use it anymore) bc their own research contadicted their earlier statements, and they had to issue the new one (which you placed first) which says nothing about anything other than the BOm is a religious document and that the Smithsonian doesnt use it..whoopty doo, exactly what I said to begin with.
The stuff about the POGP I'm not going to respond to bc it is a different debate and junk that people throw out to dismiss the bOM when it has nothing to do with the BOM. Besides your arguments are again all inaccurate and I don't feel like going into it. If you want a separate debate about that I'd be willing I guess.
And if people like something and it gives them hope...who are you to shoot them down? Just bc some people do not have the capability to argue the BOm based on intellectual evidence the way we are now doesnt give you the right to go bashing them. I was trying to defend Randy who thought you were confused and was trying to help you bc he didn't see that you were just trying to lure in someone to heap your antimormon frustrations on.
I could say, show me the trumpets that blasted down the walls of Jericho..oh you can't...than the bible is false. Or I could say, the bible mentions corn 100 times or more...but there was never any corn in the Old world until the discovery of the New World so the bible is a lie.
Or, I cannot see a wave function so science is a lie.
Or, I do not see cavemen walking around so science is a lie.
Or, I dont see any missing links so evolution is a lie.
Or, that the best examples of documented evolution are actually devolutions so Evolution Theory is a lie.
Or, I can't see the big band so science is a lie
Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc
Its quite simple, and I could undercut any belief at all that youre will willing to put up on the chopping block. What do you believe? I'm sure I could make anything you believe look ridiculous.
Including a farm boy with a third grade education wrote such a complex book with multiple types of literature, even types of lterature (like apocolyptic and poetry) that were'nt even known to exist.
QUOTE (warship+Jul 5 2006, 08:35 AM)
First I sent you the links...do you not recall? Second, I didn't say that lam'an nai was a hebrew word...I said lam'an nai translated into hebrew was lamanite...like when aeropuerto in Spanish translates to airport in English; aeropuerto is not an English word but it does translate into English. Hope that helps.
Greeting warship,
I hope all is well.
Yes, I do recall you sent me th links. It doesn’t make sense why a made up word that is supposed to be from Hebrew peoples would need to be translated back into Hebrew? The Mayan word meaning a submerged crocodile translated into Hebrew would still mean a submerged crocodile. Could it be the reason aeropuerto and airport happen to have the same meaning & sound similar is they share common latin root words? That would not be the case for Hebrew or Mayan.
That’s not what has been taught for the last 175 years. If they were originally telling the truth, why did the church authorities suddenly feel the need to change their story from what the great founding prophet have taught?
“For 175 years the leaders and general membership of the Mormon Church have believed American Indians and Polynesians are descended from Israelites based on their understanding of the Book of Mormon. We now know from DNA studies that the ancestors of both native peoples were essentially all derived from Asia. LDS apologists have claimed that the DNA research has “little or no bearing on the question of Book of Mormon historicity” and that it is all a “contrived controversy,” blown out of all proportion by critics with another agenda.1 Apologetic attempts to hose down the problem rely entirely on sweeping reinterpretations of the Book of Mormon narrative that reduce the Lehite and Mulekite colonization to a minor incursion in an as yet unknown corner of the Americas. 2”
Source click here:
mormon dna
This is an article about the lds’ attempts to make a DNA connections with native americans from a former mormon bishop who did his mission in Polynesia.
He concluded elsewhere:
“It makes no sense to insist on a belief in the unbelievable. …. In my case, for thirty years my religious orientation was accompanied by a distorted understanding of the true history of America’s past. Not only did I know little of the science that was applicable to this issue, I accepted without question the widespread urban legends in the church, one being that BYU scholars had found archaeological evidence in Mesoamerica that supported the Book of Mormon, another being that the Smithsonian Institution had used the Book of Mormon as a guide in some of their research. Scientific truth exposed my faith in a book that has no historical connection with the ancestors of the Polynesians or Native Americans.”
That’s not what has been taught for the last 175 years. If they were originally telling the truth, why did the church authorities suddenly feel the need to change their story from what the great founding prophet have taught?
“For 175 years the leaders and general membership of the Mormon Church have believed American Indians and Polynesians are descended from Israelites based on their understanding of the Book of Mormon. We now know from DNA studies that the ancestors of both native peoples were essentially all derived from Asia. LDS apologists have claimed that the DNA research has “little or no bearing on the question of Book of Mormon historicity” and that it is all a “contrived controversy,” blown out of all proportion by critics with another agenda.1 Apologetic attempts to hose down the problem rely entirely on sweeping reinterpretations of the Book of Mormon narrative that reduce the Lehite and Mulekite colonization to a minor incursion in an as yet unknown corner of the Americas. 2”
Source click here:
mormon dna
This is an article about the lds’ attempts to make a DNA connections with native americans from a former mormon bishop who did his mission in Polynesia.
He concluded elsewhere:
“It makes no sense to insist on a belief in the unbelievable. …. In my case, for thirty years my religious orientation was accompanied by a distorted understanding of the true history of America’s past. Not only did I know little of the science that was applicable to this issue, I accepted without question the widespread urban legends in the church, one being that BYU scholars had found archaeological evidence in Mesoamerica that supported the Book of Mormon, another being that the Smithsonian Institution had used the Book of Mormon as a guide in some of their research. Scientific truth exposed my faith in a book that has no historical connection with the ancestors of the Polynesians or Native Americans.”
No one will ever know what the ancient name for NHM was and Nahom is as good a guess as any other. …. Now that we have every place mentioned you want to say it is luck.
I wouldn’t exactly call it luck, I call it grasping to make any possible connection for legitimacy.
My point is this, the BOM is just not credible. The Book of Mormon presents itself as an historical record of God's revelation of Himself to the human race. If it is purported to be a true history of ancient peoples in the Americas, we should actually have something to look (as opposed to LDS fabrications) to say, yes, that’s what happened.
The below is really dated, but perhaps it gets across the point:
Mr. Ferguson has devoted a great deal of his life trying to prove the Book of Mormon by archaeology and is recognized by the Mormon people as a great defender of the faith. He has written at least three books on the subject—one of them in collaboration with Milton R. Hunter of the First Council of the Seventy. On the jacket to his book, One Fold and One Shepherd, we find the following:
Thomas Stuart Ferguson, 47, President of the New World Archaeological Foundation, is a distinguished student of the earliest high civilizations of the New World. He, with Dr. A. V. Kidder, dean of Central American archaeologists, first planned the New World Archaeological Foundation in 1952.... He raised $225,000 for the field work, incorporated the Foundation (being an attorney), assisted in the initial explorations in Central America and Mexico and has actively directed the affairs of the Foundation since its inception.
Thomas Stuart Ferguson really believed that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. In his book One Fold And One Shepherd, page 263, he stated: "The important thing now is to continue the digging at an accelerated pace in order to find more inscriptions dating to Book-of-Mormon times. Eventually we should find decipherable inscriptions ... referring to some unique person, place or event in the Book of Mormon." In 1962 Mr. Ferguson said that "Powerful evidences sustaining the book are accumulating."
The first indication we had that Mr. Ferguson was losing his faith in Mormonism was just after Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papyri were rediscovered. In 1968 he wrote us a letter saying that we were "doing a great thing-getting out some truth on the Book of Abraham." Later we heard a rumor that he had given up Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham, but this hardly prepared us for his visit on December 2, 1970. At that time, Mr. Ferguson told us frankly that he had not only given up the Book of Abraham, but that he had come to the conclusion that Joseph
Smith was not a prophet and that Mormonism was not true. He told us that he had spent twenty-five years trying to prove Mormonism, but had finally come to the conclusion that all his work in this regard had been in vain. He said that his training in law had taught him how to weigh evidence and that the case against Joseph Smith was absolutely devastating and could not be explained away. Mr. Ferguson found himself faced with a dilemma, for the Mormon church had just given him a large grant ($100,000 or more) to carry on the archaeological research of the New World Archaeological Foundation. He felt, however, that the New World Archaeological Foundation was doing legitimate archaeological work, and therefore he intended to continue this work.
Contrast that with what the one of T.S. Ferguson’s contemporaries, the renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck once a biblical skeptic who wrote after years of study: “As a matter of fact, however, it may be clearly stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact details historical statements in the Bible.”
source click here:
Glueck-archeaology
My point is this, the BOM is just not credible. The Book of Mormon presents itself as an historical record of God's revelation of Himself to the human race. If it is purported to be a true history of ancient peoples in the Americas, we should actually have something to look (as opposed to LDS fabrications) to say, yes, that’s what happened.
The below is really dated, but perhaps it gets across the point:
Mr. Ferguson has devoted a great deal of his life trying to prove the Book of Mormon by archaeology and is recognized by the Mormon people as a great defender of the faith. He has written at least three books on the subject—one of them in collaboration with Milton R. Hunter of the First Council of the Seventy. On the jacket to his book, One Fold and One Shepherd, we find the following:
Thomas Stuart Ferguson, 47, President of the New World Archaeological Foundation, is a distinguished student of the earliest high civilizations of the New World. He, with Dr. A. V. Kidder, dean of Central American archaeologists, first planned the New World Archaeological Foundation in 1952.... He raised $225,000 for the field work, incorporated the Foundation (being an attorney), assisted in the initial explorations in Central America and Mexico and has actively directed the affairs of the Foundation since its inception.
Thomas Stuart Ferguson really believed that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. In his book One Fold And One Shepherd, page 263, he stated: "The important thing now is to continue the digging at an accelerated pace in order to find more inscriptions dating to Book-of-Mormon times. Eventually we should find decipherable inscriptions ... referring to some unique person, place or event in the Book of Mormon." In 1962 Mr. Ferguson said that "Powerful evidences sustaining the book are accumulating."
The first indication we had that Mr. Ferguson was losing his faith in Mormonism was just after Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papyri were rediscovered. In 1968 he wrote us a letter saying that we were "doing a great thing-getting out some truth on the Book of Abraham." Later we heard a rumor that he had given up Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham, but this hardly prepared us for his visit on December 2, 1970. At that time, Mr. Ferguson told us frankly that he had not only given up the Book of Abraham, but that he had come to the conclusion that Joseph
Smith was not a prophet and that Mormonism was not true. He told us that he had spent twenty-five years trying to prove Mormonism, but had finally come to the conclusion that all his work in this regard had been in vain. He said that his training in law had taught him how to weigh evidence and that the case against Joseph Smith was absolutely devastating and could not be explained away. Mr. Ferguson found himself faced with a dilemma, for the Mormon church had just given him a large grant ($100,000 or more) to carry on the archaeological research of the New World Archaeological Foundation. He felt, however, that the New World Archaeological Foundation was doing legitimate archaeological work, and therefore he intended to continue this work.
Contrast that with what the one of T.S. Ferguson’s contemporaries, the renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck once a biblical skeptic who wrote after years of study: “As a matter of fact, however, it may be clearly stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact details historical statements in the Bible.”
source click here:
Glueck-archeaology
Its quite simple, and I could undercut any belief at all that youre will willing to put up on the chopping block. What do you believe? I'm sure I could make anything you believe look ridiculous.
Perhaps you could if you stick around or Perhaps there is truth out there, but you haven't found it yet. Time will tell.
Greeting warship,
I hope all is well.
Yes, I do recall you sent me th links. It doesn’t make sense why a made up word that is supposed to be from Hebrew peoples would need to be translated back into Hebrew? The Mayan word meaning a submerged crocodile translated into Hebrew would still mean a submerged crocodile. Could it be the reason aeropuerto and airport happen to have the same meaning & sound similar is they share common latin root words? That would not be the case for Hebrew or Mayan.
QUOTE
The record in no way says the Nephites are the only people there, or the dominant force, in fact it demonstates they are a minority. The BOm in no way says that the Amerindians are all their descendants or that no one else was there when they arrived. These are straw man arguments created by critics who eigther don't understand the BOM or who are deliberately misleading.
That’s not what has been taught for the last 175 years. If they were originally telling the truth, why did the church authorities suddenly feel the need to change their story from what the great founding prophet have taught?
“For 175 years the leaders and general membership of the Mormon Church have believed American Indians and Polynesians are descended from Israelites based on their understanding of the Book of Mormon. We now know from DNA studies that the ancestors of both native peoples were essentially all derived from Asia. LDS apologists have claimed that the DNA research has “little or no bearing on the question of Book of Mormon historicity” and that it is all a “contrived controversy,” blown out of all proportion by critics with another agenda.1 Apologetic attempts to hose down the problem rely entirely on sweeping reinterpretations of the Book of Mormon narrative that reduce the Lehite and Mulekite colonization to a minor incursion in an as yet unknown corner of the Americas. 2”
Source click here:
mormon dna
This is an article about the lds’ attempts to make a DNA connections with native americans from a former mormon bishop who did his mission in Polynesia.
He concluded elsewhere:
“It makes no sense to insist on a belief in the unbelievable. …. In my case, for thirty years my religious orientation was accompanied by a distorted understanding of the true history of America’s past. Not only did I know little of the science that was applicable to this issue, I accepted without question the widespread urban legends in the church, one being that BYU scholars had found archaeological evidence in Mesoamerica that supported the Book of Mormon, another being that the Smithsonian Institution had used the Book of Mormon as a guide in some of their research. Scientific truth exposed my faith in a book that has no historical connection with the ancestors of the Polynesians or Native Americans.”
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The record in no way says the Nephites are the only people there, or the dominant force, in fact it demonstates they are a minority. The BOm in no way says that the Amerindians are all their descendants or that no one else was there when they arrived. These are straw man arguments created by critics who eigther don't understand the BOM or who are deliberately misleading. |
That’s not what has been taught for the last 175 years. If they were originally telling the truth, why did the church authorities suddenly feel the need to change their story from what the great founding prophet have taught?
“For 175 years the leaders and general membership of the Mormon Church have believed American Indians and Polynesians are descended from Israelites based on their understanding of the Book of Mormon. We now know from DNA studies that the ancestors of both native peoples were essentially all derived from Asia. LDS apologists have claimed that the DNA research has “little or no bearing on the question of Book of Mormon historicity” and that it is all a “contrived controversy,” blown out of all proportion by critics with another agenda.1 Apologetic attempts to hose down the problem rely entirely on sweeping reinterpretations of the Book of Mormon narrative that reduce the Lehite and Mulekite colonization to a minor incursion in an as yet unknown corner of the Americas. 2”
Source click here:
mormon dna
This is an article about the lds’ attempts to make a DNA connections with native americans from a former mormon bishop who did his mission in Polynesia.
He concluded elsewhere:
“It makes no sense to insist on a belief in the unbelievable. …. In my case, for thirty years my religious orientation was accompanied by a distorted understanding of the true history of America’s past. Not only did I know little of the science that was applicable to this issue, I accepted without question the widespread urban legends in the church, one being that BYU scholars had found archaeological evidence in Mesoamerica that supported the Book of Mormon, another being that the Smithsonian Institution had used the Book of Mormon as a guide in some of their research. Scientific truth exposed my faith in a book that has no historical connection with the ancestors of the Polynesians or Native Americans.”
No one will ever know what the ancient name for NHM was and Nahom is as good a guess as any other. …. Now that we have every place mentioned you want to say it is luck.
I wouldn’t exactly call it luck, I call it grasping to make any possible connection for legitimacy.
QUOTE
they had to issue the new one (which you placed first) which says nothing about anything other than the BOm is a religious document and that the Smithsonian doesnt use it..whoopty doo, exactly what I said to begin with.
My point is this, the BOM is just not credible. The Book of Mormon presents itself as an historical record of God's revelation of Himself to the human race. If it is purported to be a true history of ancient peoples in the Americas, we should actually have something to look (as opposed to LDS fabrications) to say, yes, that’s what happened.
The below is really dated, but perhaps it gets across the point:
Mr. Ferguson has devoted a great deal of his life trying to prove the Book of Mormon by archaeology and is recognized by the Mormon people as a great defender of the faith. He has written at least three books on the subject—one of them in collaboration with Milton R. Hunter of the First Council of the Seventy. On the jacket to his book, One Fold and One Shepherd, we find the following:
Thomas Stuart Ferguson, 47, President of the New World Archaeological Foundation, is a distinguished student of the earliest high civilizations of the New World. He, with Dr. A. V. Kidder, dean of Central American archaeologists, first planned the New World Archaeological Foundation in 1952.... He raised $225,000 for the field work, incorporated the Foundation (being an attorney), assisted in the initial explorations in Central America and Mexico and has actively directed the affairs of the Foundation since its inception.
Thomas Stuart Ferguson really believed that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. In his book One Fold And One Shepherd, page 263, he stated: "The important thing now is to continue the digging at an accelerated pace in order to find more inscriptions dating to Book-of-Mormon times. Eventually we should find decipherable inscriptions ... referring to some unique person, place or event in the Book of Mormon." In 1962 Mr. Ferguson said that "Powerful evidences sustaining the book are accumulating."
The first indication we had that Mr. Ferguson was losing his faith in Mormonism was just after Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papyri were rediscovered. In 1968 he wrote us a letter saying that we were "doing a great thing-getting out some truth on the Book of Abraham." Later we heard a rumor that he had given up Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham, but this hardly prepared us for his visit on December 2, 1970. At that time, Mr. Ferguson told us frankly that he had not only given up the Book of Abraham, but that he had come to the conclusion that Joseph
Smith was not a prophet and that Mormonism was not true. He told us that he had spent twenty-five years trying to prove Mormonism, but had finally come to the conclusion that all his work in this regard had been in vain. He said that his training in law had taught him how to weigh evidence and that the case against Joseph Smith was absolutely devastating and could not be explained away. Mr. Ferguson found himself faced with a dilemma, for the Mormon church had just given him a large grant ($100,000 or more) to carry on the archaeological research of the New World Archaeological Foundation. He felt, however, that the New World Archaeological Foundation was doing legitimate archaeological work, and therefore he intended to continue this work.
Contrast that with what the one of T.S. Ferguson’s contemporaries, the renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck once a biblical skeptic who wrote after years of study: “As a matter of fact, however, it may be clearly stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact details historical statements in the Bible.”
source click here:
Glueck-archeaology
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| they had to issue the new one (which you placed first) which says nothing about anything other than the BOm is a religious document and that the Smithsonian doesnt use it..whoopty doo, exactly what I said to begin with. |
My point is this, the BOM is just not credible. The Book of Mormon presents itself as an historical record of God's revelation of Himself to the human race. If it is purported to be a true history of ancient peoples in the Americas, we should actually have something to look (as opposed to LDS fabrications) to say, yes, that’s what happened.
The below is really dated, but perhaps it gets across the point:
Mr. Ferguson has devoted a great deal of his life trying to prove the Book of Mormon by archaeology and is recognized by the Mormon people as a great defender of the faith. He has written at least three books on the subject—one of them in collaboration with Milton R. Hunter of the First Council of the Seventy. On the jacket to his book, One Fold and One Shepherd, we find the following:
Thomas Stuart Ferguson, 47, President of the New World Archaeological Foundation, is a distinguished student of the earliest high civilizations of the New World. He, with Dr. A. V. Kidder, dean of Central American archaeologists, first planned the New World Archaeological Foundation in 1952.... He raised $225,000 for the field work, incorporated the Foundation (being an attorney), assisted in the initial explorations in Central America and Mexico and has actively directed the affairs of the Foundation since its inception.
Thomas Stuart Ferguson really believed that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. In his book One Fold And One Shepherd, page 263, he stated: "The important thing now is to continue the digging at an accelerated pace in order to find more inscriptions dating to Book-of-Mormon times. Eventually we should find decipherable inscriptions ... referring to some unique person, place or event in the Book of Mormon." In 1962 Mr. Ferguson said that "Powerful evidences sustaining the book are accumulating."
The first indication we had that Mr. Ferguson was losing his faith in Mormonism was just after Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papyri were rediscovered. In 1968 he wrote us a letter saying that we were "doing a great thing-getting out some truth on the Book of Abraham." Later we heard a rumor that he had given up Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham, but this hardly prepared us for his visit on December 2, 1970. At that time, Mr. Ferguson told us frankly that he had not only given up the Book of Abraham, but that he had come to the conclusion that Joseph
Smith was not a prophet and that Mormonism was not true. He told us that he had spent twenty-five years trying to prove Mormonism, but had finally come to the conclusion that all his work in this regard had been in vain. He said that his training in law had taught him how to weigh evidence and that the case against Joseph Smith was absolutely devastating and could not be explained away. Mr. Ferguson found himself faced with a dilemma, for the Mormon church had just given him a large grant ($100,000 or more) to carry on the archaeological research of the New World Archaeological Foundation. He felt, however, that the New World Archaeological Foundation was doing legitimate archaeological work, and therefore he intended to continue this work.
Contrast that with what the one of T.S. Ferguson’s contemporaries, the renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck once a biblical skeptic who wrote after years of study: “As a matter of fact, however, it may be clearly stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact details historical statements in the Bible.”
source click here:
Glueck-archeaology
Its quite simple, and I could undercut any belief at all that youre will willing to put up on the chopping block. What do you believe? I'm sure I could make anything you believe look ridiculous.
Perhaps you could if you stick around or Perhaps there is truth out there, but you haven't found it yet. Time will tell.
Issacar,
Hope your doing well also.
Well, I'm not arguing the merits of church authorities. Personally, I don't think one of them has been any good since Joseph Smith. I thought the argument was on the book of Mormon itself...I mean I can bring up critiques made of the bOM in the 1830's and chop those to shreds..but does that have anything to do with the text in question? Those men were making guesses as to the scope of the bOM. The fact that they misunderstood the geographical evidence really only lends more credibility as the text makes it quite clear that the geographical area it covers is no more than a few hundred miles. BTW, JS did point to Mesoamerica as being the possible setting when John LLoyd Stevens published in the 1840's the first book readily accessible to the American public about the ruins of Central America. This demonstates that they were still looking and that nothing was set in stone.
Well, I'm not arguing the merits of church authorities. Personally, I don't think one of them has been any good since Joseph Smith. I thought the argument was on the book of Mormon itself...I mean I can bring up critiques made of the bOM in the 1830's and chop those to shreds..but does that have anything to do with the text in question? Those men were making guesses as to the scope of the bOM. The fact that they misunderstood the geographical evidence really only lends more credibility as the text makes it quite clear that the geographical area it covers is no more than a few hundred miles. BTW, JS did point to Mesoamerica as being the possible setting when John LLoyd Stevens published in the 1840's the first book readily accessible to the American public about the ruins of Central America. This demonstates that they were still looking and that nothing was set in stone.
My point is this, the BOM is just not credible.
And you base this off the Smithsonian not using it as a reference? I guess a lot of info must not be credible to you then...I mean if the SMITHSONIAN does'nt use it it must not be credible....I wonder if they used my old college texts??? Oh, well..they probably don't so those books must not be credible either.
As for the rest of your letter...I'm glad your still stickin' with the cuttin' and pastin'..hope that continues to work well.
I noticed you didn't even mention a thing about chiasmus or qasidas or the literary complexity. No snappy come back for that, huh?
PS I could really care less if some mormon scholar lost his faith. In fact I'm pretty much disinterested in argument about the BOM that doesnt actually deal with the BOM.
PSS you know for someone who doesn't believe in Mormonism, you sure seem to have spent a lot of time with the subject...sure youre not a closet case believer?
I enjoy our little argument
Hope your doing well also.
QUOTE
That’s not what has been taught for the last 175 years. If they were originally telling the truth, why did the church authorities suddenly feel the need to change their story from what the great founding prophet have taught?
Well, I'm not arguing the merits of church authorities. Personally, I don't think one of them has been any good since Joseph Smith. I thought the argument was on the book of Mormon itself...I mean I can bring up critiques made of the bOM in the 1830's and chop those to shreds..but does that have anything to do with the text in question? Those men were making guesses as to the scope of the bOM. The fact that they misunderstood the geographical evidence really only lends more credibility as the text makes it quite clear that the geographical area it covers is no more than a few hundred miles. BTW, JS did point to Mesoamerica as being the possible setting when John LLoyd Stevens published in the 1840's the first book readily accessible to the American public about the ruins of Central America. This demonstates that they were still looking and that nothing was set in stone.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That’s not what has been taught for the last 175 years. If they were originally telling the truth, why did the church authorities suddenly feel the need to change their story from what the great founding prophet have taught? |
Well, I'm not arguing the merits of church authorities. Personally, I don't think one of them has been any good since Joseph Smith. I thought the argument was on the book of Mormon itself...I mean I can bring up critiques made of the bOM in the 1830's and chop those to shreds..but does that have anything to do with the text in question? Those men were making guesses as to the scope of the bOM. The fact that they misunderstood the geographical evidence really only lends more credibility as the text makes it quite clear that the geographical area it covers is no more than a few hundred miles. BTW, JS did point to Mesoamerica as being the possible setting when John LLoyd Stevens published in the 1840's the first book readily accessible to the American public about the ruins of Central America. This demonstates that they were still looking and that nothing was set in stone.
My point is this, the BOM is just not credible.
And you base this off the Smithsonian not using it as a reference? I guess a lot of info must not be credible to you then...I mean if the SMITHSONIAN does'nt use it it must not be credible....I wonder if they used my old college texts??? Oh, well..they probably don't so those books must not be credible either.
As for the rest of your letter...I'm glad your still stickin' with the cuttin' and pastin'..hope that continues to work well.
I noticed you didn't even mention a thing about chiasmus or qasidas or the literary complexity. No snappy come back for that, huh?
PS I could really care less if some mormon scholar lost his faith. In fact I'm pretty much disinterested in argument about the BOM that doesnt actually deal with the BOM.
PSS you know for someone who doesn't believe in Mormonism, you sure seem to have spent a lot of time with the subject...sure youre not a closet case believer?
I enjoy our little argument
Issachar,
I just wanted to tell you that iron was used by the Olmecs. A simple look in the encyclopedia will tell you that..
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69347
This paper discusses magnetism from objects made of hematite that might be part of a compass.
http://www.smf.mx/rmf/pdf/rmf-e/50_1/50_051.pdf
So I hope you don't go running around saying that Mesoamerica didn't know anything about metallurgy during the BOM time period, because as you can see, a check in the nearest encyclopedia will prove you wrong.
Stay breezey
I just wanted to tell you that iron was used by the Olmecs. A simple look in the encyclopedia will tell you that..
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69347
This paper discusses magnetism from objects made of hematite that might be part of a compass.
http://www.smf.mx/rmf/pdf/rmf-e/50_1/50_051.pdf
So I hope you don't go running around saying that Mesoamerica didn't know anything about metallurgy during the BOM time period, because as you can see, a check in the nearest encyclopedia will prove you wrong.
Stay breezey
warship,
I am extremely busy at work right now and then bogged down with a home improvement project, so I don't even have time to cut & past at the moment . But should be able to get back you later.
I am extremely busy at work right now and then bogged down with a home improvement project, so I don't even have time to cut & past at the moment
. But should be able to get back you later.
warship,
I apologize for the long delay in getting back to you.
(Although) Some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) have suggested that the Olmecs may be the Jaredites recorded in the Book of Mormon because of alleged similarities in the Olmec archaeological record. However, the book mentions things that are known not to have been part of the Olmec culture, such as iron, silk and elephants. This speculation is not supported by any aspect of conventional Mesoamerican scholarship. …… Mainstream scholars remain unconvinced by these speculations. Others are more critical and regard the promotion of such unfounded theories as a form of ethnocentric racism at the expense of indigenous Americans.
source click here: Olmec
And I am sure some of them will continue to be looking, but there is nothing real to find. The church authorities were just what they were told by JS, who had it worng also.
Why did Joseph Smith send missionaries to the "Lamanites" if the American Indians at the time weren't really "Lamanites"? (D&C 10:48, 28:8, 54:8, etc.) He certainly considered the Indians to be Lamanites (even if the current leaders of the church no longer believe them to be so).
' The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians. By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph who was sold into Egypt, and that the land of America is a promised land unto them.' (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 17).
'He told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham.' (Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, Diary 1835-1836, pg. 76). (Note - this was one of Smith's 'founding visions'. Apparently, Moroni was not aware that there were other, non-Semitic natives in America either).
Re iron: A little unsmeltered iron ore for used for a type of mirrors is wholely unrelated to metallurigy production methods such as found in the iron age of the old world and which would have been necessary per the supposed civilizations improvements as described in the book in passages such as:
Jarom 1 [8] And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war..
2 Nephi 5 [15] And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.
Ether 7 [9] Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib
Machinery-huh? Steel & iron for making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground and weapons of war? Steel & iron farming implements and machinery in the Americas before the Spanish is outlandish warship. Is one to suppose they used the machinery to fine tune all their tools and weapons? This is not native americans he was describing.
I am sorry to have to sayt it warship, but it is just not credible. I have looked at a few of Jeff Lindsey’s weak arguments where he him-haws around the bush, avoids the many similarities & changes the subject trying to claim JS didn’t plagiarize from other sources when he wrote the book.
Ethan Smith, author of View of the Hebrews was one of those sources. This book presented the untenable position which was held by a number of clergy in America at the time, that the Indians were part of the lost tribes of Israel.35 It was published in 1823, the same year that Joseph Smith claimed to have his "First Vision." Much of the material in it was apparently incorporated into the Book of Mormon.
•"View of the Hebrews" was published in 1823 and a second edition was published in 1825.
•The Book of Mormon was published in 1830, years after the View of the Hebrews.
•"View of the Hebrews" flooded the area in which Joseph Smith lived.
•The author (Ethan Smith) was the pastor of the religious congregation in which the (Oliver) Cowdrey family attended.
•The (Oliver) Cowdrey family was related to the (Joseph) Smith family, and Oliver Cowdrey assisted in the "translation" of the Book of Mormon.
•On what was probably a promotional tour for his book, Ethan Smith visited the small hometown (Palmyra) of Joseph Smith in late 1826.
•Josiah Priest's The Wonders of Nature and Providence, Displayed (1825), which also includes numerous parallels to the Book of Mormon, quotes extensively from Ethan Smith's book and is known to have been available in the local Manchester Rental Library when Joseph Smith lived in the village.
source: Plagerized from Smith
B. H. Roberts, a General Authority of the Mormon Church, did an analysis of this book and its possible relation to the writing of the Book of Mormon in 1921 at the request of the leadership of the Mormon Church. His stated purpose was to review possible arguments by non-Mormons against the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. Interestingly enough, he came to the conclusion that View of the Hebrews could have been one of the human sources for the contents of the Book of Mormon, and that Joseph Smith was sufficiently intelligent to have written it with this book and other resources which were available to him.36
His studies only recently became available to the public. They were published by the Utah Lighthouse Ministry of Salt Lake City under the name Roberts' Manuscripts Revealed'A Photographic Reproduction of Mormon Historian B.H. Roberts' Secret Studies on the Book of Mormon. Both it and the View of the Hebrews were closely examined by the author who confirms as valid the following conclusions which Roberts listed when comparing View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon: 37
1. Both books begin with "the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of Israel" at 600 B.C.38
2. Ethan Smith, the author, begins his second chapter by quoting from Isaiah to prove that Judah and Israel will be restored in the last days. "One of the passages quoted" is from Isaiah 11, and this is one of the quotes that Joseph Smith claimed the Angel Moroni made to him when it visited him the first time on September 23rd, 1823, telling him of the golden plates.39
3. Ethan Smith quotes from "20 chapters of Isaiah" in the fourth chapter of his book to prove his point. Joseph Smith quotes from "21 chapters of Isaiah" in the first one hundred pages of the Book of Mormon to make the same point. In both cases, they are quoted in the only version of the Bible in common use in that day, the King James Version. "Many of the passages quoted...are identical."40
4. Ethan Smith quotes from Isaiah 18, citing it as a call upon the Christian Church in the United States to convert the Indians to Christianity. While the Book of Mormon itself does not cite this chapter, it makes the same point repeatedly.(e.g., I Nephi 13:39; 3:191).41
5. Both reported the use of iron and steel by the ancient inhabitants of America.42
6. Both report vast multitudes once filled North America.43
7. Both report use of the Urim and Thummim by the ancient Indians.44
8. Both are against polygamy.45
9. Both report that the Indians once had a holy book, but lost it and fell out of favor with God.46
10. Both speak of Egyptian hieroglyphics in America.47
11. Both have a division into two peoples' one civilized and one barbarian. Both depict wars between them with the extinction of the civilized people.48
12. Both depict knowledge of the mechanical arts, written language and one God as typical of the ancient Americans.49
13. Both proclaim destruction of the disobedient gentiles by converted Indians. This prophecy is given three times in the Book of Mormon by Jesus Christ himself (3 Nephi 16:8-16; 7:32-42; 3 Nephi 20:14-17; 9:50-53; 3 Nephi 21:11-13; 9:98-100).50
Concerning this prophecy, Roberts makes the following observation:
All this might have seemed possible to men living in the early decades of the 19th century, 1820-1830, when Indian tribes of unknown strength but well attested ferocity occupied the greater part of the land over which the United States now extends its jurisdiction, but it is scarcely possible now to entertain such conceptions of native race terror, triumph, and domination over the Gentile nation of the United States. All reasonable expectation of such an event has passed.51
Here, Joseph Smith may have overstepped himself, for even this General Authority of the Mormon Church finds it difficult to believe that Jesus Christ would promote the Book of Mormon to that extent.
35 Wesley P. Walters, THE HUMAN ORIGINS OF THE BOOK OF MORMON (Safety Harbor, FL: Ex-Mormons for Jesus, 1979), 4.
36 Brigham H. Roberts, ROBERTS' MANUSCRIPT REVEAL. A PHOTOGRAPHIC REPRODUCTION OF MORMON HISTORIAN B.H. ROBERTS' SECRET STUDIES ON THE BOOK OF MORMON.(Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1980), 123, 155.
37 Ethan Smith, VIEW OF THE HEBREWS, 2nd ed. (1825: Photomechanical Reprint., Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, n.d.).
38 Roberts, 156.
39 Roberts, 156-157.
40 Roberts, 159-161.
41 Walters, 12.
42 Roberts, 203-204.
43 Roberts, 207.
44 Roberts, 220.
45 Roberts, 229-230.
46 Roberts, 232.
47 Roberts, 237.
48 Roberts, 276.
49 Roberts, 275-276.
50 Roberts, 175.
51 Roberts, 177.
52 Sidney B. Sperry, BOOK OF MORMON COMPENDIUM (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1968), 507.
I will be traveling all this week for work so I will probably not be able to get back to you until next week. I hope you have a nice week until then.
I apologize for the long delay in getting back to you.
(Although) Some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) have suggested that the Olmecs may be the Jaredites recorded in the Book of Mormon because of alleged similarities in the Olmec archaeological record. However, the book mentions things that are known not to have been part of the Olmec culture, such as iron, silk and elephants. This speculation is not supported by any aspect of conventional Mesoamerican scholarship. …… Mainstream scholars remain unconvinced by these speculations. Others are more critical and regard the promotion of such unfounded theories as a form of ethnocentric racism at the expense of indigenous Americans.
source click here: Olmec
QUOTE
Well, I'm not arguing the merits of church authorities. Personally, I don't think one of them has been any good since Joseph Smith. I thought the argument was on the book of Mormon itself...I mean I can bring up critiques made of the bOM in the 1830's and chop those to shreds..but does that have anything to do with the text in question? Those men were making guesses as to the scope of the bOM. The fact that they misunderstood the geographical evidence really only lends more credibility as the text makes it quite clear that the geographical area it covers is no more than a few hundred miles. BTW, JS did point to Mesoamerica as being the possible setting when John LLoyd Stevens published in the 1840's the first book readily accessible to the American public about the ruins of Central America. This demonstates that they were still looking and that nothing was set in stone.
And I am sure some of them will continue to be looking, but there is nothing real to find. The church authorities were just what they were told by JS, who had it worng also.
Why did Joseph Smith send missionaries to the "Lamanites" if the American Indians at the time weren't really "Lamanites"? (D&C 10:48, 28:8, 54:8, etc.) He certainly considered the Indians to be Lamanites (even if the current leaders of the church no longer believe them to be so).
' The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians. By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph who was sold into Egypt, and that the land of America is a promised land unto them.' (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 17).
'He told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham.' (Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, Diary 1835-1836, pg. 76). (Note - this was one of Smith's 'founding visions'. Apparently, Moroni was not aware that there were other, non-Semitic natives in America either).
Re iron: A little unsmeltered iron ore for used for a type of mirrors is wholely unrelated to metallurigy production methods such as found in the iron age of the old world and which would have been necessary per the supposed civilizations improvements as described in the book in passages such as:
Jarom 1 [8] And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war..
2 Nephi 5 [15] And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.
Ether 7 [9] Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib
Machinery-huh? Steel & iron for making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground and weapons of war? Steel & iron farming implements and machinery in the Americas before the Spanish is outlandish warship. Is one to suppose they used the machinery to fine tune all their tools and weapons? This is not native americans he was describing.
I am sorry to have to sayt it warship, but it is just not credible. I have looked at a few of Jeff Lindsey’s weak arguments where he him-haws around the bush, avoids the many similarities & changes the subject trying to claim JS didn’t plagiarize from other sources when he wrote the book.
Ethan Smith, author of View of the Hebrews was one of those sources. This book presented the untenable position which was held by a number of clergy in America at the time, that the Indians were part of the lost tribes of Israel.35 It was published in 1823, the same year that Joseph Smith claimed to have his "First Vision." Much of the material in it was apparently incorporated into the Book of Mormon.
•"View of the Hebrews" was published in 1823 and a second edition was published in 1825.
•The Book of Mormon was published in 1830, years after the View of the Hebrews.
•"View of the Hebrews" flooded the area in which Joseph Smith lived.
•The author (Ethan Smith) was the pastor of the religious congregation in which the (Oliver) Cowdrey family attended.
•The (Oliver) Cowdrey family was related to the (Joseph) Smith family, and Oliver Cowdrey assisted in the "translation" of the Book of Mormon.
•On what was probably a promotional tour for his book, Ethan Smith visited the small hometown (Palmyra) of Joseph Smith in late 1826.
•Josiah Priest's The Wonders of Nature and Providence, Displayed (1825), which also includes numerous parallels to the Book of Mormon, quotes extensively from Ethan Smith's book and is known to have been available in the local Manchester Rental Library when Joseph Smith lived in the village.
source: Plagerized from Smith
B. H. Roberts, a General Authority of the Mormon Church, did an analysis of this book and its possible relation to the writing of the Book of Mormon in 1921 at the request of the leadership of the Mormon Church. His stated purpose was to review possible arguments by non-Mormons against the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. Interestingly enough, he came to the conclusion that View of the Hebrews could have been one of the human sources for the contents of the Book of Mormon, and that Joseph Smith was sufficiently intelligent to have written it with this book and other resources which were available to him.36
His studies only recently became available to the public. They were published by the Utah Lighthouse Ministry of Salt Lake City under the name Roberts' Manuscripts Revealed'A Photographic Reproduction of Mormon Historian B.H. Roberts' Secret Studies on the Book of Mormon. Both it and the View of the Hebrews were closely examined by the author who confirms as valid the following conclusions which Roberts listed when comparing View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon: 37
1. Both books begin with "the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of Israel" at 600 B.C.38
2. Ethan Smith, the author, begins his second chapter by quoting from Isaiah to prove that Judah and Israel will be restored in the last days. "One of the passages quoted" is from Isaiah 11, and this is one of the quotes that Joseph Smith claimed the Angel Moroni made to him when it visited him the first time on September 23rd, 1823, telling him of the golden plates.39
3. Ethan Smith quotes from "20 chapters of Isaiah" in the fourth chapter of his book to prove his point. Joseph Smith quotes from "21 chapters of Isaiah" in the first one hundred pages of the Book of Mormon to make the same point. In both cases, they are quoted in the only version of the Bible in common use in that day, the King James Version. "Many of the passages quoted...are identical."40
4. Ethan Smith quotes from Isaiah 18, citing it as a call upon the Christian Church in the United States to convert the Indians to Christianity. While the Book of Mormon itself does not cite this chapter, it makes the same point repeatedly.(e.g., I Nephi 13:39; 3:191).41
5. Both reported the use of iron and steel by the ancient inhabitants of America.42
6. Both report vast multitudes once filled North America.43
7. Both report use of the Urim and Thummim by the ancient Indians.44
8. Both are against polygamy.45
9. Both report that the Indians once had a holy book, but lost it and fell out of favor with God.46
10. Both speak of Egyptian hieroglyphics in America.47
11. Both have a division into two peoples' one civilized and one barbarian. Both depict wars between them with the extinction of the civilized people.48
12. Both depict knowledge of the mechanical arts, written language and one God as typical of the ancient Americans.49
13. Both proclaim destruction of the disobedient gentiles by converted Indians. This prophecy is given three times in the Book of Mormon by Jesus Christ himself (3 Nephi 16:8-16; 7:32-42; 3 Nephi 20:14-17; 9:50-53; 3 Nephi 21:11-13; 9:98-100).50
Concerning this prophecy, Roberts makes the following observation:
All this might have seemed possible to men living in the early decades of the 19th century, 1820-1830, when Indian tribes of unknown strength but well attested ferocity occupied the greater part of the land over which the United States now extends its jurisdiction, but it is scarcely possible now to entertain such conceptions of native race terror, triumph, and domination over the Gentile nation of the United States. All reasonable expectation of such an event has passed.51
Here, Joseph Smith may have overstepped himself, for even this General Authority of the Mormon Church finds it difficult to believe that Jesus Christ would promote the Book of Mormon to that extent.
35 Wesley P. Walters, THE HUMAN ORIGINS OF THE BOOK OF MORMON (Safety Harbor, FL: Ex-Mormons for Jesus, 1979), 4.
36 Brigham H. Roberts, ROBERTS' MANUSCRIPT REVEAL. A PHOTOGRAPHIC REPRODUCTION OF MORMON HISTORIAN B.H. ROBERTS' SECRET STUDIES ON THE BOOK OF MORMON.(Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1980), 123, 155.
37 Ethan Smith, VIEW OF THE HEBREWS, 2nd ed. (1825: Photomechanical Reprint., Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, n.d.).
38 Roberts, 156.
39 Roberts, 156-157.
40 Roberts, 159-161.
41 Walters, 12.
42 Roberts, 203-204.
43 Roberts, 207.
44 Roberts, 220.
45 Roberts, 229-230.
46 Roberts, 232.
47 Roberts, 237.
48 Roberts, 276.
49 Roberts, 275-276.
50 Roberts, 175.
51 Roberts, 177.
52 Sidney B. Sperry, BOOK OF MORMON COMPENDIUM (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1968), 507.
I will be traveling all this week for work so I will probably not be able to get back to you until next week. I hope you have a nice week until then.
Sorry it took me so long. I stopped checking bc I knew you would be awhile and I forgot till now. I'll give a brief answer bc I'm not sure if I waited so long that you are not checking this post anymore. I f you write back then I'll give you a much fuller response.
1. It is a well known mesoamerican practice to melt down metal objects and reuse the metal. This practice extends to Jade objects as well, not melted but buffed and reworked into a different object.
2. It is a grammatical fact that mesoamericans had words for metal as early 1000 bc. How do they have words for metals that they supposedly don't know exist.
3. Recent findings have yielded as much as ten tons of earth heaped up by the olmecs in search of.........iron ore!
4. I have read View of Hebrews and does not resemble the bOM in anyway recognizable to me.
5. Once again, JS misunderstanding the scope of the bOM is more proof to me that he did not write it. The BOM is clear that only a couple of weeks of travel on foot would take you to eighther extreme of the territory in question. The fact that that JS and other early members did not catch this is significant. There is no way your walking from canada to chile in a couple of weeks...try a decade. It easy to understand why they thought this...they didn't have time to scrutinize the large text for geographical implications but were more concerned with its theological importance.
5. steel in the bible refers to brass...mesoamericans did know about brass.
6. It is not racism. Huge civilizations flourished in South america that had nothing to with bom peoples and no mormon claims so. Those cultures were just as sophisticated as mesoamerica if not more.
7. Once again I don't care what some mormon scholar who lost his fath thought. I read view of hebrews and it talked about the ten lost tribes iof Israel peopling america and not people who escaped jerusalem in 600bc. I don't know where you cut and pasted this list from..but once again I'm not very impressed with cutting and pasting.
As far as the correlations...I could write a much more impressive list of correlations with the BOM and the history of Ixtlilxochitl, a central American descendant of royalty who comprised a history of cental america during the bOm and was not published until after the death of JS. It would be at least ten times longer and stronger. I find it amazing how much ixt's history and the BOM are in lock step together.
1. It is a well known mesoamerican practice to melt down metal objects and reuse the metal. This practice extends to Jade objects as well, not melted but buffed and reworked into a different object.
2. It is a grammatical fact that mesoamericans had words for metal as early 1000 bc. How do they have words for metals that they supposedly don't know exist.
3. Recent findings have yielded as much as ten tons of earth heaped up by the olmecs in search of.........iron ore!
4. I have read View of Hebrews and does not resemble the bOM in anyway recognizable to me.
5. Once again, JS misunderstanding the scope of the bOM is more proof to me that he did not write it. The BOM is clear that only a couple of weeks of travel on foot would take you to eighther extreme of the territory in question. The fact that that JS and other early members did not catch this is significant. There is no way your walking from canada to chile in a couple of weeks...try a decade. It easy to understand why they thought this...they didn't have time to scrutinize the large text for geographical implications but were more concerned with its theological importance.
5. steel in the bible refers to brass...mesoamericans did know about brass.
6. It is not racism. Huge civilizations flourished in South america that had nothing to with bom peoples and no mormon claims so. Those cultures were just as sophisticated as mesoamerica if not more.
7. Once again I don't care what some mormon scholar who lost his fath thought. I read view of hebrews and it talked about the ten lost tribes iof Israel peopling america and not people who escaped jerusalem in 600bc. I don't know where you cut and pasted this list from..but once again I'm not very impressed with cutting and pasting.
As far as the correlations...I could write a much more impressive list of correlations with the BOM and the history of Ixtlilxochitl, a central American descendant of royalty who comprised a history of cental america during the bOm and was not published until after the death of JS. It would be at least ten times longer and stronger. I find it amazing how much ixt's history and the BOM are in lock step together.
QUOTE (warship+Jul 19 2006, 03:43 AM)
3. Recent findings have yielded as much as ten tons of earth heaped up by the olmecs in search of.........iron ore!
warship,
Sorry for the long delay. I was away and then behind on things when I returned so do not provide the best counterpart for you on this discussion. If we continue, all I ask is for a little patience as I may be slow in being able to respond back to you.
They may have found a little iron ore. My point was this, the ancients of the Americas did not have an iron age during that time frame as would be necessary to describe in the book where there was advanced production of swords and implements out of iron and steel. There is no indication that this happened and if those civilizations had this technology, they would not have regressed to lesser technologies, but instead advanced them further over time. LDS articles such as one I found in the Meridian magazine go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to try to explain this away.
I have not taken the time to read the View of the Hebrews, at least yet. From others who have read it including some Mormons (excluding Lindsey’s crowd who I doubt would ever admit such), it sounds like that even though the plot is a little different they admit that the basic outline is very similar. It was written prior to JS’s ‘translation’ and as I pointed out, it is not unreasonable to conclude he could have had access to it, especially since the family of Cowdery’s (who aided in his ‘translation’) attended the religious congregation in which Smith was pastor.
I have not taken the time to read the View of the Hebrews, at least yet. From others who have read it including some Mormons (excluding Lindsey’s crowd who I doubt would ever admit such), it sounds like that even though the plot is a little different they admit that the basic outline is very similar. It was written prior to JS’s ‘translation’ and as I pointed out, it is not unreasonable to conclude he could have had access to it, especially since the family of Cowdery’s (who aided in his ‘translation’) attended the religious congregation in which Smith was pastor.
5. Once again, JS misunderstanding the scope of the bOM is more proof to me that he did not write it. The BOM is clear that only a couple of weeks of travel on foot would take you to eighther extreme of the territory in question. The fact that that JS and other early members did not catch this is significant. There is no way your walking from canada to chile in a couple of weeks...try a decade. It easy to understand why they thought this...they didn't have time to scrutinize the large text for geographical implications but were more concerned with its theological importance.
Or maybe they didn’t think of what they did not know and how the inconsistencies of what they wrote would play out over time and thus cause the necessity of the Mormon church leaders to attempt to rewrite history as they go. They should have been more vague.
You do bring up an interesting point: Maybe central and south America was not on their mind since JS and the mormon church until the later half of the 20th century taught the American Indians were Lamanites.
Solomon Spaulding was a seminary class mate of Ethan Smith. See below to what I am referring to:
Ever since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, it has been accused of being a plagiarism from unpublished manuscripts by Solomon Spaulding.12 For many years the Spaulding manuscripts could not be located to verify this. When one named Manuscript Found finally was located, both the LDS and the RLDS published it, giving the impression that there was no resemblance between it and the Book of Mormon and that its publication would end this speculation.13
A superficial reading makes it obvious that the Book of Mormon was not copied from it as such. Still, there have been mixed feelings about this matter. Walter Martin, a cult specialist, even published a book, Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?, explaining that Spaulding had written a later manuscript which was in fact. the basis for the Book of Mormon.14 The evidence presented by Martin has been challenged by both the Church and some of the its primary critics, but the theory itself has not been laid to rest.15
Recently, Vernal Holley put the controversy in another light by minutely comparing parallels between the Book of Mormon and the existing Spaulding manuscript.16 The following are his documented conclusions, with which the author concurs after a personal analysis of Manuscript Found.17
1. The outlines of the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding text are "essentially the same."18
2. Both records claim to have been found in "the same way."
3. Both were "written for the same purpose."
4. Both "tell the story of the same ancient American inhabitants."
5. Both "have the same sea voyage."
6. Both "have light-skinned and dark-skinned people.
7. Both "tell of the same arts and sciences."
8. Both "have a comparable Christian theology."
9. Both "present a white God person."
10. Both "involve use of seer stones."
11. Both claim to "contain an abridged history of the extinct inhabitants of ancient America."19
12. Both describe how the record was deposited, protected supernaturally, and how its finder made a translation of it.
13. Both state that it "will come forth . . .when the Europeans (gentiles) inhabit this land (M.F., 3-4; I Nephi 13:35; 3:184-185).
14. Both "translators" testify of the truthfulness of the work and request that the readers read it "with a pure heart" (M.F., 2-3; Moroni 10:4-5; 10:4-5).20
15. Both have the earth revolving about the sun-something unknown until 1543 A.D. (M.F., 16; Helaman 12:13-15; 4:61-62).21
16. A theological address by an Indian chief in Spaulding's manuscript contains "the same thoughts" and they are "in the same order" as in a similar address in the Book of Mormon by King Benjamin (M.F., 26-32; Mosiah 1-4; 1-2).
17. Spaulding's leader teaches from a "sacred roll," while King Benjamin teaches from "plates of brass."
18. The religious section of Spaulding is written in the chiastic style, which is found throughout the Book of Mormon.22
19. Lobaska's rule over two empires and his golden age of peace parallels Christ's effect on the peoples in the Book of Mormon.23
20. Both include coins and fortifications.24
21. Both have similar scenes of bloodshed, even down to the final combats between enemy commanders.
22. Both depict a "little band" of warriors, 3,000 in M. F. and 2,000 Nephi-Lehis in the Book of
Mormon.25
Besides these parallels, there are literally hundreds of identical or similar word combinations. In order to conserve space, only a few are listed below:26
rights of their country (M.F., 31; 3 Nephi 6:30; 3:35)
Crying with a loud voice (80; Alma 46:19; 21:48)
He put forth his hand and (28; Alma 30:51; 16:63)
An immense slaughter (101; Alma 49:21; 21:174)
mourning and lamentation (84; Helaman 7:15; 3:16)
according to their numbers (54; 3 Nephi 6:3; 3:4)
___________________________________________________________________________________
Even more surprising than these parallels, however, is the land area described in the two books. Holley emphasizes that Book of Mormon geography quite neatly matches the land described in Manuscript. Thus the "sea east" becomes Lake Ontario and the "sea west" becomes Lake Erie rather than, as Mormons have assumed, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Locating the River Sidon has always been a difficulty for Book of Mormon scholars.27 With this model, however, the River Sidon handily becomes the present-day Genesee River.28
Another problem has been the width of the "small neck of land" in the Book of Mormon, which is described as "a day and a half's journey" from sea to sea (Alma 22:32; 13:76). The distance of thirty-seven miles between these two lakes fits the description much better than the distance of over one hundred thirty miles at the Isthmus of Panama. 67 ancient fortified earthworks have been found at this location.29
Spaulding lived in this area and had first-hand knowledge of the earthworks, names and geographical locations that are portrayed in his writings. By imposing the Book of Mormon descriptions on maps of these areas, the following modern place names are found to coincide with the cities and lands in the Book of Mormon:30
Modern B of M
Angola Angola
Boaz Boaz
Jerusalem Jerusalem
Jordan Jordan
Lehigh Lehi
Rama Ramah
St. Agathe Ogath
Alma Valley of Alma
Antrim Antum
Antioch Anti-Anti
Conner Comner
St. Ephrem Hill Ephraim
Hellam Helam
Jacobsburg Jacobugath
Kishkiminetas Kishkumen
Mantua Manti
Monroe Moroni
Minoa Minon
Moraviantown Morianton
Morin *****
Noah Lake Land of Noah
Oneida Onidah
Oneida Castle Hill Onidah
Omer Omner
Ripple Lake Waters of Ripli- ancum
Sodom Sidom
Shiloh Shilom
Shurbrook Shurr
Tenecum Teancum
Holley bolsters his case for Spaulding authorship of the Book of Mormon with a quotation by Mormon archaeologist Joseph Vincent, who said:
If a sincere student of the Book of Mormon will conscientiously read and study the book itself and will plot out all the locations mentioned,...he will find that all Book of Mormon lands lie within a five or six hundred mile radius, and that this area could not possibly extend from Chile to New York.
What you said is true to a point. I googled ‘steel in the bible’ and came across the following.
Steel
The "bow of steel" in (A.V.) 2 Sam. 22:35; Job 20:24; Ps. 18:34
is in the Revised Version "bow of brass" (Heb.
kesheth-nehushah). In Jer. 15:12 the same word is used, and is
also rendered in the Revised Version "brass." But more correctly
it is copper (q.v.), as brass in the ordinary sense of the word
(an alloy of copper and zinc) was not known to the ancients.
From: Mormon site called By Common Consent, I found the following.
“An interesting key to the problem is Nephi’s steel bow (1 Ne 16.18). My assumption here is that this phrase is meant to describe the same weapon that is called a “steel bow” in the KJV Bible. (I think this is obvious whether Joseph Smith invented the text or
it is ancient.) The phrase “bow of steel” occurs three times in the KJV: 2 Sam 22.35, Job 20.24, and Ps 18.34. In all cases it translates the Hebrew phrase qeshet nechushah, which modern translations consistently, and correctly, translate as “bronze.”
That brings up another point, that an obvious source of material for JS’s writing the BOM is the King James Bible. In reality, the Book of Mormon contains very little original information. Rather, Joseph Smith apparently reworked information which he had assimilated and then presented it as a "translation" from the golden plates. This can be demonstrated by comparing the Book of Mormon with other sources which were available to him. Also, he probably had some unpublished manuscripts from Solomon Spaulding which he used.
Material in the Book of Mormon can be examined which appears to be plagiarized from The Maccabees, Shakespeare's Hamlet, Josephus' Wars of the Jews, Solomon Spaulding's Manuscript Found, Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews and the King James Version of the Bible.
The most common masculine name in the Book of Mormon and the title of four of its fifteen books is "Nephi." Most Mormons are surprised to learn that this name is found in 2 Maccabees 1:36. Here it is a place name, however, and not the name of a person.7
The play Hamlet has been popular ever since written by William Shakespeare. In the Book of Mormon, a paraphrase from Shakespeare is considered by many to be evidence of plagiarism.8 Here the Book of Mormon represents Lehi, who supposedly lived about 600 B.C., as saying, "the cold and silent gravefrom whence no traveler can return." (2 Nephi 1:14; 1:28). The Shakespearian play, Hamlet, written during the 16th century after Christ, reads, "...death, the undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns" (Act 3, Scene 1).9 The similarity in the two passages is undeniable.
Then there is the the strange event in the Book of Mormon where Nephi is ordered by the "Spirit" to kill his uncle. This is uncannily similar to the scene in "Hamlet" where Hamlet's father's ghost appears to him and orders him to kill his uncle (Act 1, Scene 5)10 The primary difference between the two is that the "ghost" that appeared to Hamlet with these orders becomes the "Spirit" in the Book of Mormon; in fact, none other than the "Holy Spirit" (I Nephi 4:10-12; 1:110-113).
Interestingly enough, righteous Nephi is much more easily convinced that this is actually the will of God than is Hamlet. Not only does Nephi show no remorse after killing his drunken uncle, but he apparently cuts off his head without getting any blood on his uncle's clothes, for he is able to undress him, put his uncle's clothes on himself, and then impersonate him. Since the normal-sized person has about five quarts of blood in his body, this is a miracle in itself.
Nephi then proceeds to deceive his uncle's servant, steal the sacred brass plates, kidnap the servant, and take both them and him to America. The justification for these actions is explained very simply by the "Spirit:" Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" (I Nephi 4:13; 1:114-115).
This rationale strangely echoes the prophecy of the high priest as to why Jesus should be put to death in John 11:49-50: "Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." Thus the importance of Laban's death is perversely placed on a similar plane as Jesus", even though Nephi violates several of the ten commandments while bringing it about (Ex. 20:13, 15, 17). This and similar types of distortion of Biblical phraseology and theology are found throughout the Book of Mormon.
Critics have also long wondered why the French word "adieu" appears in the Book of Mormon, when it was supposed to have been translated from the golden plates into English.(Jacob 7:27; 5:48).11 This expression is very common throughout Shakespeare's writings.
What you said is true to a point. I googled ‘steel in the bible’ and came across the following.
Steel
The "bow of steel" in (A.V.) 2 Sam. 22:35; Job 20:24; Ps. 18:34
is in the Revised Version "bow of brass" (Heb.
kesheth-nehushah). In Jer. 15:12 the same word is used, and is
also rendered in the Revised Version "brass." But more correctly
it is copper (q.v.), as brass in the ordinary sense of the word
(an alloy of copper and zinc) was not known to the ancients.
From: Mormon site called By Common Consent, I found the following.
“An interesting key to the problem is Nephi’s steel bow (1 Ne 16.18). My assumption here is that this phrase is meant to describe the same weapon that is called a “steel bow” in the KJV Bible. (I think this is obvious whether Joseph Smith invented the text or
it is ancient.) The phrase “bow of steel” occurs three times in the KJV: 2 Sam 22.35, Job 20.24, and Ps 18.34. In all cases it translates the Hebrew phrase qeshet nechushah, which modern translations consistently, and correctly, translate as “bronze.”
That brings up another point, that an obvious source of material for JS’s writing the BOM is the King James Bible. In reality, the Book of Mormon contains very little original information. Rather, Joseph Smith apparently reworked information which he had assimilated and then presented it as a "translation" from the golden plates. This can be demonstrated by comparing the Book of Mormon with other sources which were available to him. Also, he probably had some unpublished manuscripts from Solomon Spaulding which he used.
Material in the Book of Mormon can be examined which appears to be plagiarized from The Maccabees, Shakespeare's Hamlet, Josephus' Wars of the Jews, Solomon Spaulding's Manuscript Found, Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews and the King James Version of the Bible.
The most common masculine name in the Book of Mormon and the title of four of its fifteen books is "Nephi." Most Mormons are surprised to learn that this name is found in 2 Maccabees 1:36. Here it is a place name, however, and not the name of a person.7
The play Hamlet has been popular ever since written by William Shakespeare. In the Book of Mormon, a paraphrase from Shakespeare is considered by many to be evidence of plagiarism.8 Here the Book of Mormon represents Lehi, who supposedly lived about 600 B.C., as saying, "the cold and silent gravefrom whence no traveler can return." (2 Nephi 1:14; 1:28). The Shakespearian play, Hamlet, written during the 16th century after Christ, reads, "...death, the undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns" (Act 3, Scene 1).9 The similarity in the two passages is undeniable.
Then there is the the strange event in the Book of Mormon where Nephi is ordered by the "Spirit" to kill his uncle. This is uncannily similar to the scene in "Hamlet" where Hamlet's father's ghost appears to him and orders him to kill his uncle (Act 1, Scene 5)10 The primary difference between the two is that the "ghost" that appeared to Hamlet with these orders becomes the "Spirit" in the Book of Mormon; in fact, none other than the "Holy Spirit" (I Nephi 4:10-12; 1:110-113).
Interestingly enough, righteous Nephi is much more easily convinced that this is actually the will of God than is Hamlet. Not only does Nephi show no remorse after killing his drunken uncle, but he apparently cuts off his head without getting any blood on his uncle's clothes, for he is able to undress him, put his uncle's clothes on himself, and then impersonate him. Since the normal-sized person has about five quarts of blood in his body, this is a miracle in itself.
Nephi then proceeds to deceive his uncle's servant, steal the sacred brass plates, kidnap the servant, and take both them and him to America. The justification for these actions is explained very simply by the "Spirit:" Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" (I Nephi 4:13; 1:114-115).
This rationale strangely echoes the prophecy of the high priest as to why Jesus should be put to death in John 11:49-50: "Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." Thus the importance of Laban's death is perversely placed on a similar plane as Jesus", even though Nephi violates several of the ten commandments while bringing it about (Ex. 20:13, 15, 17). This and similar types of distortion of Biblical phraseology and theology are found throughout the Book of Mormon.
Critics have also long wondered why the French word "adieu" appears in the Book of Mormon, when it was supposed to have been translated from the golden plates into English.(Jacob 7:27; 5:48).11 This expression is very common throughout Shakespeare's writings.
6. It is not racism. Huge civilizations flourished in South america that had nothing to with bom peoples and no mormon claims so. Those cultures were just as sophisticated as mesoamerica if not more.
It is racism to tell people the reason their skin is dark because they disobeyed God. That’s what the mormon church taught for years and is a whole other subject.
I have to run but can get back to your later on. Have a good rest of the week.
warship,
Sorry for the long delay. I was away and then behind on things when I returned so do not provide the best counterpart for you on this discussion. If we continue, all I ask is for a little patience as I may be slow in being able to respond back to you.
They may have found a little iron ore. My point was this, the ancients of the Americas did not have an iron age during that time frame as would be necessary to describe in the book where there was advanced production of swords and implements out of iron and steel. There is no indication that this happened and if those civilizations had this technology, they would not have regressed to lesser technologies, but instead advanced them further over time. LDS articles such as one I found in the Meridian magazine go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to try to explain this away.
QUOTE
4. I have read View of Hebrews and does not resemble the bOM in anyway recognizable to me.
I have not taken the time to read the View of the Hebrews, at least yet. From others who have read it including some Mormons (excluding Lindsey’s crowd who I doubt would ever admit such), it sounds like that even though the plot is a little different they admit that the basic outline is very similar. It was written prior to JS’s ‘translation’ and as I pointed out, it is not unreasonable to conclude he could have had access to it, especially since the family of Cowdery’s (who aided in his ‘translation’) attended the religious congregation in which Smith was pastor.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4. I have read View of Hebrews and does not resemble the bOM in anyway recognizable to me. |
I have not taken the time to read the View of the Hebrews, at least yet. From others who have read it including some Mormons (excluding Lindsey’s crowd who I doubt would ever admit such), it sounds like that even though the plot is a little different they admit that the basic outline is very similar. It was written prior to JS’s ‘translation’ and as I pointed out, it is not unreasonable to conclude he could have had access to it, especially since the family of Cowdery’s (who aided in his ‘translation’) attended the religious congregation in which Smith was pastor.
5. Once again, JS misunderstanding the scope of the bOM is more proof to me that he did not write it. The BOM is clear that only a couple of weeks of travel on foot would take you to eighther extreme of the territory in question. The fact that that JS and other early members did not catch this is significant. There is no way your walking from canada to chile in a couple of weeks...try a decade. It easy to understand why they thought this...they didn't have time to scrutinize the large text for geographical implications but were more concerned with its theological importance.
Or maybe they didn’t think of what they did not know and how the inconsistencies of what they wrote would play out over time and thus cause the necessity of the Mormon church leaders to attempt to rewrite history as they go. They should have been more vague.
You do bring up an interesting point: Maybe central and south America was not on their mind since JS and the mormon church until the later half of the 20th century taught the American Indians were Lamanites.
Solomon Spaulding was a seminary class mate of Ethan Smith. See below to what I am referring to:
Ever since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, it has been accused of being a plagiarism from unpublished manuscripts by Solomon Spaulding.12 For many years the Spaulding manuscripts could not be located to verify this. When one named Manuscript Found finally was located, both the LDS and the RLDS published it, giving the impression that there was no resemblance between it and the Book of Mormon and that its publication would end this speculation.13
A superficial reading makes it obvious that the Book of Mormon was not copied from it as such. Still, there have been mixed feelings about this matter. Walter Martin, a cult specialist, even published a book, Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?, explaining that Spaulding had written a later manuscript which was in fact. the basis for the Book of Mormon.14 The evidence presented by Martin has been challenged by both the Church and some of the its primary critics, but the theory itself has not been laid to rest.15
Recently, Vernal Holley put the controversy in another light by minutely comparing parallels between the Book of Mormon and the existing Spaulding manuscript.16 The following are his documented conclusions, with which the author concurs after a personal analysis of Manuscript Found.17
1. The outlines of the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding text are "essentially the same."18
2. Both records claim to have been found in "the same way."
3. Both were "written for the same purpose."
4. Both "tell the story of the same ancient American inhabitants."
5. Both "have the same sea voyage."
6. Both "have light-skinned and dark-skinned people.
7. Both "tell of the same arts and sciences."
8. Both "have a comparable Christian theology."
9. Both "present a white God person."
10. Both "involve use of seer stones."
11. Both claim to "contain an abridged history of the extinct inhabitants of ancient America."19
12. Both describe how the record was deposited, protected supernaturally, and how its finder made a translation of it.
13. Both state that it "will come forth . . .when the Europeans (gentiles) inhabit this land (M.F., 3-4; I Nephi 13:35; 3:184-185).
14. Both "translators" testify of the truthfulness of the work and request that the readers read it "with a pure heart" (M.F., 2-3; Moroni 10:4-5; 10:4-5).20
15. Both have the earth revolving about the sun-something unknown until 1543 A.D. (M.F., 16; Helaman 12:13-15; 4:61-62).21
16. A theological address by an Indian chief in Spaulding's manuscript contains "the same thoughts" and they are "in the same order" as in a similar address in the Book of Mormon by King Benjamin (M.F., 26-32; Mosiah 1-4; 1-2).
17. Spaulding's leader teaches from a "sacred roll," while King Benjamin teaches from "plates of brass."
18. The religious section of Spaulding is written in the chiastic style, which is found throughout the Book of Mormon.22
19. Lobaska's rule over two empires and his golden age of peace parallels Christ's effect on the peoples in the Book of Mormon.23
20. Both include coins and fortifications.24
21. Both have similar scenes of bloodshed, even down to the final combats between enemy commanders.
22. Both depict a "little band" of warriors, 3,000 in M. F. and 2,000 Nephi-Lehis in the Book of
Mormon.25
Besides these parallels, there are literally hundreds of identical or similar word combinations. In order to conserve space, only a few are listed below:26
rights of their country (M.F., 31; 3 Nephi 6:30; 3:35)
Crying with a loud voice (80; Alma 46:19; 21:48)
He put forth his hand and (28; Alma 30:51; 16:63)
An immense slaughter (101; Alma 49:21; 21:174)
mourning and lamentation (84; Helaman 7:15; 3:16)
according to their numbers (54; 3 Nephi 6:3; 3:4)
___________________________________________________________________________________
Even more surprising than these parallels, however, is the land area described in the two books. Holley emphasizes that Book of Mormon geography quite neatly matches the land described in Manuscript. Thus the "sea east" becomes Lake Ontario and the "sea west" becomes Lake Erie rather than, as Mormons have assumed, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Locating the River Sidon has always been a difficulty for Book of Mormon scholars.27 With this model, however, the River Sidon handily becomes the present-day Genesee River.28
Another problem has been the width of the "small neck of land" in the Book of Mormon, which is described as "a day and a half's journey" from sea to sea (Alma 22:32; 13:76). The distance of thirty-seven miles between these two lakes fits the description much better than the distance of over one hundred thirty miles at the Isthmus of Panama. 67 ancient fortified earthworks have been found at this location.29
Spaulding lived in this area and had first-hand knowledge of the earthworks, names and geographical locations that are portrayed in his writings. By imposing the Book of Mormon descriptions on maps of these areas, the following modern place names are found to coincide with the cities and lands in the Book of Mormon:30
Modern B of M
Angola Angola
Boaz Boaz
Jerusalem Jerusalem
Jordan Jordan
Lehigh Lehi
Rama Ramah
St. Agathe Ogath
Alma Valley of Alma
Antrim Antum
Antioch Anti-Anti
Conner Comner
St. Ephrem Hill Ephraim
Hellam Helam
Jacobsburg Jacobugath
Kishkiminetas Kishkumen
Mantua Manti
Monroe Moroni
Minoa Minon
Moraviantown Morianton
Morin *****
Noah Lake Land of Noah
Oneida Onidah
Oneida Castle Hill Onidah
Omer Omner
Ripple Lake Waters of Ripli- ancum
Sodom Sidom
Shiloh Shilom
Shurbrook Shurr
Tenecum Teancum
Holley bolsters his case for Spaulding authorship of the Book of Mormon with a quotation by Mormon archaeologist Joseph Vincent, who said:
If a sincere student of the Book of Mormon will conscientiously read and study the book itself and will plot out all the locations mentioned,...he will find that all Book of Mormon lands lie within a five or six hundred mile radius, and that this area could not possibly extend from Chile to New York.
QUOTE
5. steel in the bible refers to brass...mesoamericans did know about brass.
What you said is true to a point. I googled ‘steel in the bible’ and came across the following.
Steel
The "bow of steel" in (A.V.) 2 Sam. 22:35; Job 20:24; Ps. 18:34
is in the Revised Version "bow of brass" (Heb.
kesheth-nehushah). In Jer. 15:12 the same word is used, and is
also rendered in the Revised Version "brass." But more correctly
it is copper (q.v.), as brass in the ordinary sense of the word
(an alloy of copper and zinc) was not known to the ancients.
From: Mormon site called By Common Consent, I found the following.
“An interesting key to the problem is Nephi’s steel bow (1 Ne 16.18). My assumption here is that this phrase is meant to describe the same weapon that is called a “steel bow” in the KJV Bible. (I think this is obvious whether Joseph Smith invented the text or
it is ancient.) The phrase “bow of steel” occurs three times in the KJV: 2 Sam 22.35, Job 20.24, and Ps 18.34. In all cases it translates the Hebrew phrase qeshet nechushah, which modern translations consistently, and correctly, translate as “bronze.”
That brings up another point, that an obvious source of material for JS’s writing the BOM is the King James Bible. In reality, the Book of Mormon contains very little original information. Rather, Joseph Smith apparently reworked information which he had assimilated and then presented it as a "translation" from the golden plates. This can be demonstrated by comparing the Book of Mormon with other sources which were available to him. Also, he probably had some unpublished manuscripts from Solomon Spaulding which he used.
Material in the Book of Mormon can be examined which appears to be plagiarized from The Maccabees, Shakespeare's Hamlet, Josephus' Wars of the Jews, Solomon Spaulding's Manuscript Found, Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews and the King James Version of the Bible.
The most common masculine name in the Book of Mormon and the title of four of its fifteen books is "Nephi." Most Mormons are surprised to learn that this name is found in 2 Maccabees 1:36. Here it is a place name, however, and not the name of a person.7
The play Hamlet has been popular ever since written by William Shakespeare. In the Book of Mormon, a paraphrase from Shakespeare is considered by many to be evidence of plagiarism.8 Here the Book of Mormon represents Lehi, who supposedly lived about 600 B.C., as saying, "the cold and silent gravefrom whence no traveler can return." (2 Nephi 1:14; 1:28). The Shakespearian play, Hamlet, written during the 16th century after Christ, reads, "...death, the undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns" (Act 3, Scene 1).9 The similarity in the two passages is undeniable.
Then there is the the strange event in the Book of Mormon where Nephi is ordered by the "Spirit" to kill his uncle. This is uncannily similar to the scene in "Hamlet" where Hamlet's father's ghost appears to him and orders him to kill his uncle (Act 1, Scene 5)10 The primary difference between the two is that the "ghost" that appeared to Hamlet with these orders becomes the "Spirit" in the Book of Mormon; in fact, none other than the "Holy Spirit" (I Nephi 4:10-12; 1:110-113).
Interestingly enough, righteous Nephi is much more easily convinced that this is actually the will of God than is Hamlet. Not only does Nephi show no remorse after killing his drunken uncle, but he apparently cuts off his head without getting any blood on his uncle's clothes, for he is able to undress him, put his uncle's clothes on himself, and then impersonate him. Since the normal-sized person has about five quarts of blood in his body, this is a miracle in itself.
Nephi then proceeds to deceive his uncle's servant, steal the sacred brass plates, kidnap the servant, and take both them and him to America. The justification for these actions is explained very simply by the "Spirit:" Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" (I Nephi 4:13; 1:114-115).
This rationale strangely echoes the prophecy of the high priest as to why Jesus should be put to death in John 11:49-50: "Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." Thus the importance of Laban's death is perversely placed on a similar plane as Jesus", even though Nephi violates several of the ten commandments while bringing it about (Ex. 20:13, 15, 17). This and similar types of distortion of Biblical phraseology and theology are found throughout the Book of Mormon.
Critics have also long wondered why the French word "adieu" appears in the Book of Mormon, when it was supposed to have been translated from the golden plates into English.(Jacob 7:27; 5:48).11 This expression is very common throughout Shakespeare's writings.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 5. steel in the bible refers to brass...mesoamericans did know about brass. |
What you said is true to a point. I googled ‘steel in the bible’ and came across the following.
Steel
The "bow of steel" in (A.V.) 2 Sam. 22:35; Job 20:24; Ps. 18:34
is in the Revised Version "bow of brass" (Heb.
kesheth-nehushah). In Jer. 15:12 the same word is used, and is
also rendered in the Revised Version "brass." But more correctly
it is copper (q.v.), as brass in the ordinary sense of the word
(an alloy of copper and zinc) was not known to the ancients.
From: Mormon site called By Common Consent, I found the following.
“An interesting key to the problem is Nephi’s steel bow (1 Ne 16.18). My assumption here is that this phrase is meant to describe the same weapon that is called a “steel bow” in the KJV Bible. (I think this is obvious whether Joseph Smith invented the text or
it is ancient.) The phrase “bow of steel” occurs three times in the KJV: 2 Sam 22.35, Job 20.24, and Ps 18.34. In all cases it translates the Hebrew phrase qeshet nechushah, which modern translations consistently, and correctly, translate as “bronze.”
That brings up another point, that an obvious source of material for JS’s writing the BOM is the King James Bible. In reality, the Book of Mormon contains very little original information. Rather, Joseph Smith apparently reworked information which he had assimilated and then presented it as a "translation" from the golden plates. This can be demonstrated by comparing the Book of Mormon with other sources which were available to him. Also, he probably had some unpublished manuscripts from Solomon Spaulding which he used.
Material in the Book of Mormon can be examined which appears to be plagiarized from The Maccabees, Shakespeare's Hamlet, Josephus' Wars of the Jews, Solomon Spaulding's Manuscript Found, Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews and the King James Version of the Bible.
The most common masculine name in the Book of Mormon and the title of four of its fifteen books is "Nephi." Most Mormons are surprised to learn that this name is found in 2 Maccabees 1:36. Here it is a place name, however, and not the name of a person.7
The play Hamlet has been popular ever since written by William Shakespeare. In the Book of Mormon, a paraphrase from Shakespeare is considered by many to be evidence of plagiarism.8 Here the Book of Mormon represents Lehi, who supposedly lived about 600 B.C., as saying, "the cold and silent gravefrom whence no traveler can return." (2 Nephi 1:14; 1:28). The Shakespearian play, Hamlet, written during the 16th century after Christ, reads, "...death, the undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns" (Act 3, Scene 1).9 The similarity in the two passages is undeniable.
Then there is the the strange event in the Book of Mormon where Nephi is ordered by the "Spirit" to kill his uncle. This is uncannily similar to the scene in "Hamlet" where Hamlet's father's ghost appears to him and orders him to kill his uncle (Act 1, Scene 5)10 The primary difference between the two is that the "ghost" that appeared to Hamlet with these orders becomes the "Spirit" in the Book of Mormon; in fact, none other than the "Holy Spirit" (I Nephi 4:10-12; 1:110-113).
Interestingly enough, righteous Nephi is much more easily convinced that this is actually the will of God than is Hamlet. Not only does Nephi show no remorse after killing his drunken uncle, but he apparently cuts off his head without getting any blood on his uncle's clothes, for he is able to undress him, put his uncle's clothes on himself, and then impersonate him. Since the normal-sized person has about five quarts of blood in his body, this is a miracle in itself.
Nephi then proceeds to deceive his uncle's servant, steal the sacred brass plates, kidnap the servant, and take both them and him to America. The justification for these actions is explained very simply by the "Spirit:" Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" (I Nephi 4:13; 1:114-115).
This rationale strangely echoes the prophecy of the high priest as to why Jesus should be put to death in John 11:49-50: "Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." Thus the importance of Laban's death is perversely placed on a similar plane as Jesus", even though Nephi violates several of the ten commandments while bringing it about (Ex. 20:13, 15, 17). This and similar types of distortion of Biblical phraseology and theology are found throughout the Book of Mormon.
Critics have also long wondered why the French word "adieu" appears in the Book of Mormon, when it was supposed to have been translated from the golden plates into English.(Jacob 7:27; 5:48).11 This expression is very common throughout Shakespeare's writings.
6. It is not racism. Huge civilizations flourished in South america that had nothing to with bom peoples and no mormon claims so. Those cultures were just as sophisticated as mesoamerica if not more.
It is racism to tell people the reason their skin is dark because they disobeyed God. That’s what the mormon church taught for years and is a whole other subject.
I have to run but can get back to your later on. Have a good rest of the week.
First the bom is not racist. The skins are girdles...but the lamanites' are
anti-temple garments. Here...
Alma3
[4] And the Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for they had marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites; nevertheless they had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites.
[5] Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth.
[6] And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.
[7] And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.
[9] And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the samecurse upon his seed.
[14] Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.
[15] And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may becursed also.
[18] Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them.
[19] Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves thecurse; and even so doth every man that iscursed bring upon himself his own condemnation.
How does a mark, a red dot in the forehead, equal the curse if the curse is suppose to be actual black skin? It clearly states that the Amalicites were fulfilling the curse that God expressed to Nephi by taking this mark, how does a mark of red in the forehead equal black skin if that was the “curse”?????
It also shows that the skin was a skin girded about their loins to hide their nakedness(this is a girdle garment), these skins were dark bc ……
3Nephi:4
[7] And it came to pass that they did come up to battle; and it was in the sixth month; and behold, great and terrible was the day that they did come up to battle; and they were girded about after the manner of robbers; and they had a lamb-skin about their loins, and they were dyed in blood, and their heads were shorn, and they had head-plates upon them; and great and terrible was the appearance of the armies of Giddianhi, because of their armor, and because of their being dyed in blood.
These skins are probably symbolic opposites to white ceremonial garments(the girdle garment sometimes referred to as part of the ephod). Skins are reffered to as garments….
Alma 49
[6] Now the leaders of the Lamanites had supposed, because of the greatness of their numbers, yea, they supposed that they should be privileged to come upon them as they had hitherto done; yea, and they had also prepared themselves with shields, and with breastplates; and they had also prepared themselves with garments of skins, yea, very thickgarments to cover their nakedness.
They can then be a symbol for the need for purification thru the blood of Christ…….
Alma 13
11] Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb.
[12] Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.
The Lamanites “garments of skin” that were “dark” (ceremonial garments) could be made white thru the blood of the Lamb.
Just like in the bible………..
Ex28
[4] And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a broidered coat, a mitre, and a girdle: and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.
Mark1
[6] And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins;
1kings2
[5] Moreover thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, and what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, unto Abner the son of Ner, and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle that was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet.
Jeremiah 13
[6] And it came to pass after many days, that the LORD said unto me, Arise, go to Euphrates, and take thegirdle from thence, which I commanded thee to hide there.
[7] Then I went to Euphrates, and digged, and took the girdle from the place where I had hid it: and, behold, the girdle was marred, it was profitable for nothing.
[10] This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing.
[11] For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.
Dan 12
[10] Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
Rev7
[14] And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Rev15
6] And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.
The real curse is spelled out by Lehi twice……
2nephi 1
[17] My heart hath been weighed down with sorrow from time to time, for I have feared, lest for the hardness of your hearts the Lord your God should come out in the fulness of his wrath upon you, that ye be cut off and destroyed forever;
[18] Or, that a cursing should come upon you for the space of many generations; and ye are visited by sword, and by famine, and are hated, and are led according to the will and captivity of the devil.
[19] O my sons, that these things might not come upon you, but that ye might be a choice and a favored people of the Lord. But behold, his will be done; for his ways are righteousness forever.
[20] And he hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.
Again this curse is referenced with specific emphasis on Laman
2nephi4
[3] Wherefore, after my father had made an end of speaking concerning the prophecies of Joseph, he called the children of Laman, his sons, and his daughters, and said unto them: Behold, my sons, and my daughters, who are the sons and the daughters of my first-born, I would that ye should give ear unto my words.
[4] For the Lord God hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; and inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.
[5] But behold, my sons and my daughters, I cannot go down to my grave save I should leave a blessing upon you; for behold, I know that if ye are brought up in the way ye should go ye will not depart from it.
[6] Wherefore, if ye are cursed, behold, I leave my blessing upon you, that the cursing may be taken from you and be answered upon the heads of your parents.
[7] Wherefore, because of my blessing the Lord God will not suffer that ye shall perish; wherefore, he will be merciful unto you and unto your seed forever.
2Nephi26
[33] For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them allto come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.
Of course the black and white probably means the pure and unpure, the good and the bad…bc I don’t think any reference to black or white is about skin color in the Bom; but for those who insist it does then 2Nephi:33, above, surely does also.
As far as the similarities between the Solomon Spaulding Manuscript.....YOu should read Jeff lindsays parallels to Walt Whitman's Blades of Grass ......written after the bom but far more similarities between it than the BOM and Spaulding...and the stories are still extremely dissimilar. You should read about the people who find parrallels to the history of the 19 and the 20th century.
I have trouble thinking JS is the most brilliant diabolical plagarist whoever lived.
He had a 3rd grade education. And no one has ever been known to pull of such a thing in all of history. The BOm has been read by more people than Walt Whitman, Emerson, Thorough or any other of his contemporaries.
ANd I took the trouble to read the Solomon Spaulding manuscript..its not hard its like 25 pages...and your gonna say he plagarized a 500 page or more book from a 25 page manuscript???? And it doesnt resemble it...read it and see for yourself. In the time you took reading a bunch of half whits imaginary links to the bOm, you could have read it already and seen that there is no connection in material and subject.
As far as the metals. It is a well known practice that Mesoamericans melted down their metal objects to make new things...they also did this with Jade and precious stones. Very early in the Nephite history they already treat iron as a precious metal...putting it on the list of taxed metals. Most metal objects were probably melted down reused and therefore date from a different time. Also as I said before ...80% of ALL excavation done in central america dates to after 600 ad and the bOM ends in 400 ad. So very little excavation has been done from the BOM time period. Also the native languages have words for metals from up to 1000 bc.
I find it hard to believe they have names for things they don't know exist.
I'm sorry it took so long getting back . I don't mind waiting a couple of weeks between our posts at all.
I hope you have a good couple of weeks till I hear back from you.
anti-temple garments. Here...
Alma3
[4] And the Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for they had marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites; nevertheless they had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites.
[5] Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth.
[6] And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.
[7] And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.
[9] And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the samecurse upon his seed.
[14] Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.
[15] And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may becursed also.
[18] Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them.
[19] Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves thecurse; and even so doth every man that iscursed bring upon himself his own condemnation.
How does a mark, a red dot in the forehead, equal the curse if the curse is suppose to be actual black skin? It clearly states that the Amalicites were fulfilling the curse that God expressed to Nephi by taking this mark, how does a mark of red in the forehead equal black skin if that was the “curse”?????
It also shows that the skin was a skin girded about their loins to hide their nakedness(this is a girdle garment), these skins were dark bc ……
3Nephi:4
[7] And it came to pass that they did come up to battle; and it was in the sixth month; and behold, great and terrible was the day that they did come up to battle; and they were girded about after the manner of robbers; and they had a lamb-skin about their loins, and they were dyed in blood, and their heads were shorn, and they had head-plates upon them; and great and terrible was the appearance of the armies of Giddianhi, because of their armor, and because of their being dyed in blood.
These skins are probably symbolic opposites to white ceremonial garments(the girdle garment sometimes referred to as part of the ephod). Skins are reffered to as garments….
Alma 49
[6] Now the leaders of the Lamanites had supposed, because of the greatness of their numbers, yea, they supposed that they should be privileged to come upon them as they had hitherto done; yea, and they had also prepared themselves with shields, and with breastplates; and they had also prepared themselves with garments of skins, yea, very thickgarments to cover their nakedness.
They can then be a symbol for the need for purification thru the blood of Christ…….
Alma 13
11] Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb.
[12] Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.
The Lamanites “garments of skin” that were “dark” (ceremonial garments) could be made white thru the blood of the Lamb.
Just like in the bible………..
Ex28
[4] And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a broidered coat, a mitre, and a girdle: and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.
Mark1
[6] And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins;
1kings2
[5] Moreover thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, and what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, unto Abner the son of Ner, and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle that was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet.
Jeremiah 13
[6] And it came to pass after many days, that the LORD said unto me, Arise, go to Euphrates, and take thegirdle from thence, which I commanded thee to hide there.
[7] Then I went to Euphrates, and digged, and took the girdle from the place where I had hid it: and, behold, the girdle was marred, it was profitable for nothing.
[10] This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing.
[11] For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.
Dan 12
[10] Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
Rev7
[14] And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Rev15
6] And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.
The real curse is spelled out by Lehi twice……
2nephi 1
[17] My heart hath been weighed down with sorrow from time to time, for I have feared, lest for the hardness of your hearts the Lord your God should come out in the fulness of his wrath upon you, that ye be cut off and destroyed forever;
[18] Or, that a cursing should come upon you for the space of many generations; and ye are visited by sword, and by famine, and are hated, and are led according to the will and captivity of the devil.
[19] O my sons, that these things might not come upon you, but that ye might be a choice and a favored people of the Lord. But behold, his will be done; for his ways are righteousness forever.
[20] And he hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.
Again this curse is referenced with specific emphasis on Laman
2nephi4
[3] Wherefore, after my father had made an end of speaking concerning the prophecies of Joseph, he called the children of Laman, his sons, and his daughters, and said unto them: Behold, my sons, and my daughters, who are the sons and the daughters of my first-born, I would that ye should give ear unto my words.
[4] For the Lord God hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; and inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.
[5] But behold, my sons and my daughters, I cannot go down to my grave save I should leave a blessing upon you; for behold, I know that if ye are brought up in the way ye should go ye will not depart from it.
[6] Wherefore, if ye are cursed, behold, I leave my blessing upon you, that the cursing may be taken from you and be answered upon the heads of your parents.
[7] Wherefore, because of my blessing the Lord God will not suffer that ye shall perish; wherefore, he will be merciful unto you and unto your seed forever.
2Nephi26
[33] For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them allto come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.
Of course the black and white probably means the pure and unpure, the good and the bad…bc I don’t think any reference to black or white is about skin color in the Bom; but for those who insist it does then 2Nephi:33, above, surely does also.
As far as the similarities between the Solomon Spaulding Manuscript.....YOu should read Jeff lindsays parallels to Walt Whitman's Blades of Grass ......written after the bom but far more similarities between it than the BOM and Spaulding...and the stories are still extremely dissimilar. You should read about the people who find parrallels to the history of the 19 and the 20th century.
I have trouble thinking JS is the most brilliant diabolical plagarist whoever lived.
He had a 3rd grade education. And no one has ever been known to pull of such a thing in all of history. The BOm has been read by more people than Walt Whitman, Emerson, Thorough or any other of his contemporaries.
ANd I took the trouble to read the Solomon Spaulding manuscript..its not hard its like 25 pages...and your gonna say he plagarized a 500 page or more book from a 25 page manuscript???? And it doesnt resemble it...read it and see for yourself. In the time you took reading a bunch of half whits imaginary links to the bOm, you could have read it already and seen that there is no connection in material and subject.
As far as the metals. It is a well known practice that Mesoamericans melted down their metal objects to make new things...they also did this with Jade and precious stones. Very early in the Nephite history they already treat iron as a precious metal...putting it on the list of taxed metals. Most metal objects were probably melted down reused and therefore date from a different time. Also as I said before ...80% of ALL excavation done in central america dates to after 600 ad and the bOM ends in 400 ad. So very little excavation has been done from the BOM time period. Also the native languages have words for metals from up to 1000 bc.
I find it hard to believe they have names for things they don't know exist.
I'm sorry it took so long getting back . I don't mind waiting a couple of weeks between our posts at all.
I hope you have a good couple of weeks till I hear back from you.
QUOTE (warship+Aug 4 2006, 06:58 AM)
First the bom is not racist. The skins are girdles...but the lamanites' are
anti-temple garments. Here...
How does a mark, a red dot in the forehead, equal the curse if the curse is suppose to be actual black skin? It clearly states that the Amalicites were fulfilling the curse that God expressed to Nephi by taking this mark, how does a mark of red in the forehead equal black skin if that was the “curse”?????
It also shows that the skin was a skin girded about their loins to hide their nakedness(this is a girdle garment), these skins were dark bc ……
Greetings warship,
I was able to respond in less than a week!
That’s a good question but you need to brush up on your Mormon history, and not rely solely on the most up to date version of the ever fluid (i.e. changing) doctrine. The alleged curse of the skin was referring to original skin (human flesh) color, and was not meant to be a curse to wear a dark girdle (which they could have immediately taken off and thus voided the ‘curse’ which doesn’t make logical sense either). Now I will agree with you at least that many of the changes made certainly make it more socially acceptable today.
LDS - "Shall I tell you the LAW OF GOD in regard to the AFRICAN race? If the WHITE MAN who belongs to the CHOSEN SEED mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is DEATH ON THE SPOT. This will ALWAYS be so." LDS "Prophet" Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p.110, 1863, emphasis added.
LDS - "And the skins of the Lamanites [native Americans] were DARK, ...which was A CURSE UPON THEM.... And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might PRESERVE HIS PEOPLE, that they might NOT MIX and believe in incorrect traditions WHICH WOULD PROVE THEIR DESTRUCTION." Book of Mormon, Alma 3:6-8, emphasis added.
LDS - "Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became THE FATHER OF AN INFERIOR RACE. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so WHILE TIME ENDURES. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a BLACK SKIN and have been DENIED THE PRIVILEGE OF PRIESTHOOD and the fulness of the blessings of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to FEEL THEIR INFERIORITY and have been SEPARATED from the rest of mankind from the beginning. Enoch saw the people of Canaan, descendants of Cain, and he says, 'and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were DESPISED AMONG ALL PEOPLE.'" LDS "Prophet" Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, pp. 101-102, 1931, emphasis added.
LDS - "...[I]n a broad sense, CASTE SYSTEMS have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the DIVINE DECREE, the resultant RESTRICTIONS AND SEGREGATION ARE RIGHT AND PROPER and have the APPROVAL OF THE LORD. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as A CASTE APART, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should NOT INTERMARRY." LDS "Apostle" Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 108-109, 1966 edition, emphasis added.
Note: Allegedly, Mormonism's doctrines of racial discrimination are "right and proper," actually approved by God!
LDS - "Here are the Lamanites [native Americans].... Their wickedness was not so great as those [Jews] who slew the Son of God. ...Is their curse as great as that of those in Palestine? No, it is light, in comparison. They began to thirst for each other's blood, and massacred each other, from generation to generation, until they SUNK INTO WICKEDNESS, and EVIL principles the most DEGRADING, and have become LOATHSOME and VILE. Still THE CURSE WILL BE REMOVED from them before it will be removed from the children of Judah; and THEY WILL BECOME A "WHITE AND DELIGHTSOME PEOPLE." LDS "Prophet" Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 143, 1854, emphasis added.
LDS - "I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that THEY CANNOT BEAR RULE IN THE PRIESTHOOD, for the curse on them was to REMAIN upon them, until the resedue (sic) of the posterity of Michal (sic) and his wife receive the blessings...and hold the keys of the priesthood.... In the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH THE AFFRICANS (sic) CANNOT HOLD ONE PARTICAL (sic) OF POWER IN GOVERNMENT [within the LDS church]." LDS "Prophet" Brigham Young, Brigham Young Addresses, Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, Feb. 5, 1852, as quoted in Bob Witte's book entitled "Where Does It Say That?," p. 2-9, emphasis added.
But it was changing:
Mormonism contradicts itself:
LDS - "...[W]orthy males of all races can now receive the Melchizedek Priesthood.... It means that members of all races may now be married in the temple, although INTERRACIAL MARRIAGES ARE DISCOURAGED by the Brethren...." LDS "Apostle" Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 526-528, 1979 printing of 1966 edition.
Yes it currently means Pure & unpure and doesn’t referring to skin color in the 2006 versions of the BOM, but it did specifically refer to skin color for well over the 1st 100 years.
The Book of Mormon stated that when the Lamanites repented of their sins "their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites" (3 Nephi 2:15). The Book of Mormon also promised that in the last days the Lamanites—i.e., the Indians—will repent and "many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:6).
While the Mormon Church leaders taught that Indians were cursed with a dark skin they went a step further with regard to blacks. They claimed that God would not even allow blacks to hold the priesthood. After a great deal of pressure was exerted against them, the Mormon leaders finally had a new revelation granting blacks the priesthood (Deseret News, June 9, 1978).
In The Changing World of Mormonism, pages 324-25, it was written:
One issue that Mormon leaders now seem to be dodging is that concerning skin color. As we pointed out earlier, Mormon theology has always taught that "a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind" (Juvenile Instructor, vol. 3, p. 157). The Book of Mormon itself is filled with the teaching that people with dark skins are cursed. . .
Now that they [Church leaders] have abandoned the idea that blacks cannot hold the priesthood, they should explain . . . if they are repudiating the Book of Mormon teaching that a dark skin is given by God as a "curse." By giving a "revelation" on the blacks without explaining its implications, the Mormon leaders are leaving their people in a dense doctrinal fog.
One of the most embarrassing things about the doctrine concerning the Indians is that they are not becoming "white" as the Book of Mormon prophesied. The anti-Mormon writer Gordon H. Fraser claims that the "skin color" of the Indians converted to Mormonism "has not been altered in the least because of their adherence to the Mormon doctrines" (What Does The Book of Mormon Teach? p. 46).
It now appears that the Mormon leaders are trying to "dissolve" the doctrine that the Indians will turn white after turning to Mormonism. The Church has just released its 1981 printing of the "triple combination" which contains the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. This new publication contains a very important change. Previous editions of the Book of Mormon had said that in the last days the Indians "shall be a white and delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:6). In the new edition this has been altered to read that the Indians "shall be a pure and delightsome people."
The official Church magazine, The Ensign, tries to justify this change by stating:
Most students of latter-day scriptures are aware that from the very first printing typographical errors have crept into the Book of Mormon. . . .
The Prophet himself attempted to correct some of these kinds of errors, but his many duties prevented him from completing the project; and even so, some of his corrections seem to have disappeared again in later editions. For example, the 1830 and 1837 printings of the Book of Mormon contained a prophecy that the Lamanites would one day become "a white and delightsome people" (2 Ne. 30:6). In the 1840 printing, which the Prophet edited, this passage was changed to read "a pure and delightsome people," but for some reason later printings reverted to the original wording. (The Ensign, October 1981, pages 17-18)
It should be noted that Church leaders are unable to produce any documentary evidence to support their claim that this was merely a correction by Joseph Smith of a typographical error. There were originally two handwritten manuscripts for the Book of Mormon—a copy which was written by Joseph Smith's scribes as he dictated it and a second "emended" copy that was prepared for the printer. Unfortunately, most of the first manuscript was destroyed through water damage. The Mormon scholar Stanley R. Larson informs us that this manuscript "does not exist for this section of the text. . . ." ("A Study of Some Textual Variations in the Book of Mormon Comparing the Original and the Printer's Manuscripts and the 1830, the 1837, and the 1840 Editions," Unpublished M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, April 1974, page 283)
Fortunately, the second handwritten manuscript—the copy given to the printer to use to set the type for the first printing of the Book of Mormon—was preserved by Book of Mormon witness Oliver Cowdery and is still in excellent shape. This handwritten manuscript does contain the portion printed as 2 Nephi 30:6. It uses the word "white," and therefore does not support the claim that Joseph Smith was only correcting a typographical error (see Restoration Scriptures, by Richard P. Howard, Independence, Missouri, 1969, p. 49). It should be remembered also that both the first two editions of the Book of Mormon (1830 and 1837) used the word "white." It is especially significant that the 1837 edition retained this reading because the preface to this edition stated that "the whole has been carefully reexamined and compared with the original manuscripts, by elder Joseph Smith, Jr., the translator of the book of Mormon, assisted by the present printer, brother O. Cowdery, . . ." (Book of Mormon, 1837 Edition, Preface, as cited in The Ensign, September 1976, page 79)
Besides all the evidence from the original Book of Mormon manuscript and the first two printed editions, there is another passage in the Book of Mormon which makes it very clear that Joseph Smith believed that the Lamanites' skins could be turned "white" through repentence:
And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; (3 Nephi 2:15)
We have taken this quotation directly from the new "triple combination" to show that the Mormon Church is still bound by the belief that righteousness affects skin color even though they have changed the verse appearing as 2 Nephi 30:6.
The fact that Joseph Smith believed that the Indians' skins would actually become white seems to also be verified by a revelation he gave in 1831. In The Changing World of Mormonism, pages 207-214, we discuss this revelation and show that it was suppressed until 1974 when we printed it in Mormonism Like Watergate? Since that time the Mormon Church Historian Leonard J. Arrington and his assistant Davis Bitton published the important portion of it in their book, The Mormon Experience, page 195:
"For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles."
Like Joseph Smith, President Brigham Young taught that the Indians would "become 'a white and delightsome people' " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 143). While Brigham Young never released the 1831 revelation, there is evidence that he was familiar with its teaching that the Indians should be made white through intermarriage. In a book published in 1852, William Hall commented:
About the time of the breaking up of the camp at Sugar Creek, the people were called together and several speeches delivered to them by Brigham Young, and others. The speech of Young was in substance as follows:
. . . We are now going to the Lamanites, to whom we intend to be messengers of instruction. . . . We will show them that in consequence of their transgressions a curse has been inflicted upon them—in the darkness of their skins. We will have intermarriages with them, they marrying our young women, and we taking their young squaws to wife. By these means it is the will of the Lord that the curse of their color shall be removed and they restored to their pristine beauty. . . (The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed, Cincinnati, 1852, pp. 58-59)
T.B.H. Stenhouse related that Heber C. Kimball, a member of the First Presidency, spoke to some of the missionaries and
told them that he did not see how the modern predictions could well be fulfilled about the Indians becoming "a white and delightsome people" without extending polygamy to the natives, . . . (The Rocky Mountain Saints, 1873, pp. 657-59)
Although Joseph Smith's 1831 revelation commanding Mormons to marry Indians to make them "white" was suppressed, recent leaders have continued to teach the Book of Mormon doctrine that the Indians become white when they turn to Mormonism. Spencer W. Kimball, who became the twelfth President of the Church on December 30, 1973, has strongly endorsed that teaching. In the LDS General Conference, October 1960, Mr. Kimball stated:
I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today . . . they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people. . . . For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. . . . The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.
At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. . . . These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated. (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-23)
The reader will notice that Spencer W. Kimball used the Book of Mormon phrase, "a white and delightsome people." This, of course, is the very phrase that has now been changed to read, "a pure and delightsome people." It is very difficult to see any evidence of inspiration in this whole matter.
In any event, the Church now wants to suppress the Book of Mormon's teaching concerning skin color. Ron Barker, of the Associated Press, questioned Church spokesman Jerry P. Cahill concerning the matter:
Asked whether church members should assume that faithful Mormon Indians would one day become light complexioned, Cahill said they should assume that they will become a "pure and delightsome people." (Salt Lake Tribune, September 30, 1981)
We can probably expect more revisions in Mormon books to cover up this embarrassing doctrine. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, who has recently had to revise his book Mormon Doctrine to conform to the change on the anti-black doctrine, will undoubtedly have to revise his section on the "LAMANITE CURSE." On pages 428-29 of the 1979 printing of Mormon Doctrine we find the following:
. . . a twofold curse came upon the Lamanites: . . ."they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations." (1 Ne. 12:23.) So that they "might not be enticing" unto the Nephites, "the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Ne. 5:20-25; Alma 3:14-16.) . . .
During periods of great righteousness, when groups of Lamanites accepted the gospel and turned to the Lord, the curse was removed from them . . . the curse was removed from a group of Lamanite converts and they became white like the Nephites. (3 Ne. 2:15-16.) . . .
When the gospel is taken to the Lamanites in our day and they come to a knowledge of Christ and of their fathers, then the "scales of darkness" shall fall from their eyes; "and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people." (2 Ne. 30:6.) Finally, before the judgment bar of God, all who have been righteous, Lamanites and Nephites alike, will be free from the curse of spiritual death and the skin of darkness. (Jac. 3:5-9)
We believe, of course, that Apostle McConkie has the right to alter his book in any way he desires. His changes concerning the anti-black doctrine are certainly a step in the right direction. When it comes to the Book of Mormon, however, we wonder how the Mormon leaders can justify altering words that were supposed to have been translated by the power of God.
Source click Here: A White, err um Pure and Delightsome People
Yes it currently means Pure & unpure and doesn’t referring to skin color in the 2006 versions of the BOM, but it did specifically refer to skin color for well over the 1st 100 years.
The Book of Mormon stated that when the Lamanites repented of their sins "their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites" (3 Nephi 2:15). The Book of Mormon also promised that in the last days the Lamanites—i.e., the Indians—will repent and "many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:6).
While the Mormon Church leaders taught that Indians were cursed with a dark skin they went a step further with regard to blacks. They claimed that God would not even allow blacks to hold the priesthood. After a great deal of pressure was exerted against them, the Mormon leaders finally had a new revelation granting blacks the priesthood (Deseret News, June 9, 1978).
In The Changing World of Mormonism, pages 324-25, it was written:
One issue that Mormon leaders now seem to be dodging is that concerning skin color. As we pointed out earlier, Mormon theology has always taught that "a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind" (Juvenile Instructor, vol. 3, p. 157). The Book of Mormon itself is filled with the teaching that people with dark skins are cursed. . .
Now that they [Church leaders] have abandoned the idea that blacks cannot hold the priesthood, they should explain . . . if they are repudiating the Book of Mormon teaching that a dark skin is given by God as a "curse." By giving a "revelation" on the blacks without explaining its implications, the Mormon leaders are leaving their people in a dense doctrinal fog.
One of the most embarrassing things about the doctrine concerning the Indians is that they are not becoming "white" as the Book of Mormon prophesied. The anti-Mormon writer Gordon H. Fraser claims that the "skin color" of the Indians converted to Mormonism "has not been altered in the least because of their adherence to the Mormon doctrines" (What Does The Book of Mormon Teach? p. 46).
It now appears that the Mormon leaders are trying to "dissolve" the doctrine that the Indians will turn white after turning to Mormonism. The Church has just released its 1981 printing of the "triple combination" which contains the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. This new publication contains a very important change. Previous editions of the Book of Mormon had said that in the last days the Indians "shall be a white and delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:6). In the new edition this has been altered to read that the Indians "shall be a pure and delightsome people."
The official Church magazine, The Ensign, tries to justify this change by stating:
Most students of latter-day scriptures are aware that from the very first printing typographical errors have crept into the Book of Mormon. . . .
The Prophet himself attempted to correct some of these kinds of errors, but his many duties prevented him from completing the project; and even so, some of his corrections seem to have disappeared again in later editions. For example, the 1830 and 1837 printings of the Book of Mormon contained a prophecy that the Lamanites would one day become "a white and delightsome people" (2 Ne. 30:6). In the 1840 printing, which the Prophet edited, this passage was changed to read "a pure and delightsome people," but for some reason later printings reverted to the original wording. (The Ensign, October 1981, pages 17-18)
It should be noted that Church leaders are unable to produce any documentary evidence to support their claim that this was merely a correction by Joseph Smith of a typographical error. There were originally two handwritten manuscripts for the Book of Mormon—a copy which was written by Joseph Smith's scribes as he dictated it and a second "emended" copy that was prepared for the printer. Unfortunately, most of the first manuscript was destroyed through water damage. The Mormon scholar Stanley R. Larson informs us that this manuscript "does not exist for this section of the text. . . ." ("A Study of Some Textual Variations in the Book of Mormon Comparing the Original and the Printer's Manuscripts and the 1830, the 1837, and the 1840 Editions," Unpublished M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, April 1974, page 283)
Fortunately, the second handwritten manuscript—the copy given to the printer to use to set the type for the first printing of the Book of Mormon—was preserved by Book of Mormon witness Oliver Cowdery and is still in excellent shape. This handwritten manuscript does contain the portion printed as 2 Nephi 30:6. It uses the word "white," and therefore does not support the claim that Joseph Smith was only correcting a typographical error (see Restoration Scriptures, by Richard P. Howard, Independence, Missouri, 1969, p. 49). It should be remembered also that both the first two editions of the Book of Mormon (1830 and 1837) used the word "white." It is especially significant that the 1837 edition retained this reading because the preface to this edition stated that "the whole has been carefully reexamined and compared with the original manuscripts, by elder Joseph Smith, Jr., the translator of the book of Mormon, assisted by the present printer, brother O. Cowdery, . . ." (Book of Mormon, 1837 Edition, Preface, as cited in The Ensign, September 1976, page 79)
Besides all the evidence from the original Book of Mormon manuscript and the first two printed editions, there is another passage in the Book of Mormon which makes it very clear that Joseph Smith believed that the Lamanites' skins could be turned "white" through repentence:
And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; (3 Nephi 2:15)
We have taken this quotation directly from the new "triple combination" to show that the Mormon Church is still bound by the belief that righteousness affects skin color even though they have changed the verse appearing as 2 Nephi 30:6.
The fact that Joseph Smith believed that the Indians' skins would actually become white seems to also be verified by a revelation he gave in 1831. In The Changing World of Mormonism, pages 207-214, we discuss this revelation and show that it was suppressed until 1974 when we printed it in Mormonism Like Watergate? Since that time the Mormon Church Historian Leonard J. Arrington and his assistant Davis Bitton published the important portion of it in their book, The Mormon Experience, page 195:
"For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles."
Like Joseph Smith, President Brigham Young taught that the Indians would "become 'a white and delightsome people' " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 143). While Brigham Young never released the 1831 revelation, there is evidence that he was familiar with its teaching that the Indians should be made white through intermarriage. In a book published in 1852, William Hall commented:
About the time of the breaking up of the camp at Sugar Creek, the people were called together and several speeches delivered to them by Brigham Young, and others. The speech of Young was in substance as follows:
. . . We are now going to the Lamanites, to whom we intend to be messengers of instruction. . . . We will show them that in consequence of their transgressions a curse has been inflicted upon them—in the darkness of their skins. We will have intermarriages with them, they marrying our young women, and we taking their young squaws to wife. By these means it is the will of the Lord that the curse of their color shall be removed and they restored to their pristine beauty. . . (The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed, Cincinnati, 1852, pp. 58-59)
T.B.H. Stenhouse related that Heber C. Kimball, a member of the First Presidency, spoke to some of the missionaries and
told them that he did not see how the modern predictions could well be fulfilled about the Indians becoming "a white and delightsome people" without extending polygamy to the natives, . . . (The Rocky Mountain Saints, 1873, pp. 657-59)
Although Joseph Smith's 1831 revelation commanding Mormons to marry Indians to make them "white" was suppressed, recent leaders have continued to teach the Book of Mormon doctrine that the Indians become white when they turn to Mormonism. Spencer W. Kimball, who became the twelfth President of the Church on December 30, 1973, has strongly endorsed that teaching. In the LDS General Conference, October 1960, Mr. Kimball stated:
I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today . . . they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people. . . . For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. . . . The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.
At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. . . . These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated. (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-23)
The reader will notice that Spencer W. Kimball used the Book of Mormon phrase, "a white and delightsome people." This, of course, is the very phrase that has now been changed to read, "a pure and delightsome people." It is very difficult to see any evidence of inspiration in this whole matter.
In any event, the Church now wants to suppress the Book of Mormon's teaching concerning skin color. Ron Barker, of the Associated Press, questioned Church spokesman Jerry P. Cahill concerning the matter:
Asked whether church members should assume that faithful Mormon Indians would one day become light complexioned, Cahill said they should assume that they will become a "pure and delightsome people." (Salt Lake Tribune, September 30, 1981)
We can probably expect more revisions in Mormon books to cover up this embarrassing doctrine. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, who has recently had to revise his book Mormon Doctrine to conform to the change on the anti-black doctrine, will undoubtedly have to revise his section on the "LAMANITE CURSE." On pages 428-29 of the 1979 printing of Mormon Doctrine we find the following:
. . . a twofold curse came upon the Lamanites: . . ."they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations." (1 Ne. 12:23.) So that they "might not be enticing" unto the Nephites, "the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Ne. 5:20-25; Alma 3:14-16.) . . .
During periods of great righteousness, when groups of Lamanites accepted the gospel and turned to the Lord, the curse was removed from them . . . the curse was removed from a group of Lamanite converts and they became white like the Nephites. (3 Ne. 2:15-16.) . . .
When the gospel is taken to the Lamanites in our day and they come to a knowledge of Christ and of their fathers, then the "scales of darkness" shall fall from their eyes; "and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people." (2 Ne. 30:6.) Finally, before the judgment bar of God, all who have been righteous, Lamanites and Nephites alike, will be free from the curse of spiritual death and the skin of darkness. (Jac. 3:5-9)
We believe, of course, that Apostle McConkie has the right to alter his book in any way he desires. His changes concerning the anti-black doctrine are certainly a step in the right direction. When it comes to the Book of Mormon, however, we wonder how the Mormon leaders can justify altering words that were supposed to have been translated by the power of God.
Source click Here: A White, err um Pure and Delightsome People
As far as the similarities between the Solomon Spaulding Manuscript.....YOu should read Jeff lindsays parallels to Walt Whitman's Blades of Grass ......written after the bom but far more similarities between it than the BOM and Spaulding...and the stories are still extremely dissimilar. You should read about the people who find parrallels to the history of the 19 and the 20th century.
If Walt Whitman wrote after JS wrote the BOM, any similarities are irrelevant to the real BOM origins since his Blades of Grass could not be source material for JS’ BOM.
Even though JS did not experience the privileges of obtaining a higher education, he was hardly the simple farmboy who was as dumb and incapable as the chuch paints him out to be. I do not have time at present but may come back to that later (in subsequent weeks
).
Even though JS did not experience the privileges of obtaining a higher education, he was hardly the simple farmboy who was as dumb and incapable as the chuch paints him out to be. I do not have time at present but may come back to that later (in subsequent weeks ).
The BOm has been read by more people than Walt Whitman, Emerson, Thorough or any other of his contemporaries.
I agree with you that this is probably true, but the level of circulation of a book does not prove its credibility.
I have not heard of anyone claiming that JS only ‘plagarized a 500 page or more book from a 25 page manuscript.’ The accusation is that material in the Book of Mormon can be examined which appears to be plagiarized from The Maccabees, Shakespeare's Hamlet, Josephus' Wars of the Jews, Solomon Spaulding's Manuscript Found, Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews and the King James Version of the Bible. Also, he probably had some unpublished manuscripts from Solomon Spaulding which he used.
These were all written Prior to JS’s alleged ‘translation’ of the BOM in 1830 which he did not undertake alone but with the aide of others. It is extremely significant that both Ethan Smith and Spaulding both penned works which were available in surrounding areas of where JS lived before JS ever wrote the BOM. The Great Mormon Historian BH Roberts compiled a list of similarities between E Smith’s View of the Hebrews and the BOM and concluded that View of the Hebrews could have been one of the human sources for the contents of the Book of Mormon. In a another book by Vernal Holley, called BOOK OF MORMON AUTHORSHIP: A CLOSER LOOK, (Ogden: Zenos, 1983), he concluded as other Mormons have that: the outlines of the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding text are "essentially the same”, Both records claim to have been found in "the same way"; and both were "written for the same purpose."
The LDS Church now concedes that Smith used the King James Bible as one of his primary sources when it came to extended quotes from the Bible. (Sidney B. Sperry, BOOK OF MORMON COMPENDIUM (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1968), 507. The long passages quoted from Isaiah as well as from Malachi and other books of the Bible have forced them to this admission. This causes a problem, because the official position of the Church for many years was that the Urim and Thummim which accompanied the golden plates was the exclusive means of translation and that every word of the Book of Mormon was divinely translated.
1. The New Testament portion of the KJV is often quoted in the Old Testament portion of the Book of Mormon. Words of Jesus quoted almost without change before Christ's birth in the Book of Mormon are as follows: "Ye must pray always, and not faint" (2 Ne. 32:9; 14:12/Luke 18:1); "everlasting fire prepared his angels" (Mosiah 26:27; 11:135/Mat. 25:41); "then shall the righteous shine forth in the kingdom of God" (Alma 40:25; 19:59/Mat. 13:43).54
2. Words of the Apostle Paul are nearly or exactly quoted supposedly long before St. Paul's birth in the Old Testament portion of the Book of Mormon: "steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works" (Mosiah 5:15; 3:21/I Cor. 15:58); "mortal shall put on immortality" (Enos 27;46; I Cor.15:53); "the nurture and admonition of the Lord" (Enos 1; l/Eph. 6:4).55
3. The books of Hebrews and Revelation are also quoted or closely paraphrased in the Old Testament portion of the Book of Mormon: The Spirit is "the same yesterday, today, and forever" (2 Ne. 2:4; 1:65/Heb. 13:8); believers "endured the crosses of the world, and despised the shame" (2 Ne. 9:18; 6:42/Heb.12:2); "if their works have been filthiness they must needs be filthy" (I Ne. 15:33; 4:55/Rev. 22:11).56
4. Sometimes, the author forgets to change the tense from the past to the future tense when attempting to prophesy about the things to come: "the Lamb of God did fulfill all righteousness in being baptized by water?...after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him...he having set the example" (2 Ne. 31:5-10; 13:8-11).57 In Mosiah 16:6; 8:79, which was supposed to have been written about 148 B.C., such an error is made but then caught later: "now if Christ had not come into the world, speaking of things to come as though they have already come..."58
5. Old Testament Book of Mormon characters were modeled after New Testament persons.
Note the following comparison between Alma and Paul:59
1) Both tried to "destroy the Church" before their conversions.
2) -were on a "mission of persecution" the day they were converted.
3) In both cases, those "present fell to the earth."
4) In both cases, a voice spoke which others could not understand.
5) Both were asked by the voice why they were fighting against the work of God.
I have not heard of anyone claiming that JS only ‘plagarized a 500 page or more book from a 25 page manuscript.’ The accusation is that material in the Book of Mormon can be examined which appears to be plagiarized from The Maccabees, Shakespeare's Hamlet, Josephus' Wars of the Jews, Solomon Spaulding's Manuscript Found, Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews and the King James Version of the Bible. Also, he probably had some unpublished manuscripts from Solomon Spaulding which he used.
These were all written Prior to JS’s alleged ‘translation’ of the BOM in 1830 which he did not undertake alone but with the aide of others. It is extremely significant that both Ethan Smith and Spaulding both penned works which were available in surrounding areas of where JS lived before JS ever wrote the BOM. The Great Mormon Historian BH Roberts compiled a list of similarities between E Smith’s View of the Hebrews and the BOM and concluded that View of the Hebrews could have been one of the human sources for the contents of the Book of Mormon. In a another book by Vernal Holley, called BOOK OF MORMON AUTHORSHIP: A CLOSER LOOK, (Ogden: Zenos, 1983), he concluded as other Mormons have that: the outlines of the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding text are "essentially the same”, Both records claim to have been found in "the same way"; and both were "written for the same purpose."
The LDS Church now concedes that Smith used the King James Bible as one of his primary sources when it came to extended quotes from the Bible. (Sidney B. Sperry, BOOK OF MORMON COMPENDIUM (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1968), 507. The long passages quoted from Isaiah as well as from Malachi and other books of the Bible have forced them to this admission. This causes a problem, because the official position of the Church for many years was that the Urim and Thummim which accompanied the golden plates was the exclusive means of translation and that every word of the Book of Mormon was divinely translated.
1. The New Testament portion of the KJV is often quoted in the Old Testament portion of the Book of Mormon. Words of Jesus quoted almost without change before Christ's birth in the Book of Mormon are as follows: "Ye must pray always, and not faint" (2 Ne. 32:9; 14:12/Luke 18:1); "everlasting fire prepared his angels" (Mosiah 26:27; 11:135/Mat. 25:41); "then shall the righteous shine forth in the kingdom of God" (Alma 40:25; 19:59/Mat. 13:43).54
2. Words of the Apostle Paul are nearly or exactly quoted supposedly long before St. Paul's birth in the Old Testament portion of the Book of Mormon: "steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works" (Mosiah 5:15; 3:21/I Cor. 15:58); "mortal shall put on immortality" (Enos 27;46; I Cor.15:53); "the nurture and admonition of the Lord" (Enos 1; l/Eph. 6:4).55
3. The books of Hebrews and Revelation are also quoted or closely paraphrased in the Old Testament portion of the Book of Mormon: The Spirit is "the same yesterday, today, and forever" (2 Ne. 2:4; 1:65/Heb. 13:8); believers "endured the crosses of the world, and despised the shame" (2 Ne. 9:18; 6:42/Heb.12:2); "if their works have been filthiness they must needs be filthy" (I Ne. 15:33; 4:55/Rev. 22:11).56
4. Sometimes, the author forgets to change the tense from the past to the future tense when attempting to prophesy about the things to come: "the Lamb of God did fulfill all righteousness in being baptized by water?...after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him...he having set the example" (2 Ne. 31:5-10; 13:8-11).57 In Mosiah 16:6; 8:79, which was supposed to have been written about 148 B.C., such an error is made but then caught later: "now if Christ had not come into the world, speaking of things to come as though they have already come..."58
5. Old Testament Book of Mormon characters were modeled after New Testament persons.
Note the following comparison between Alma and Paul:59
1) Both tried to "destroy the Church" before their conversions.
2) -were on a "mission of persecution" the day they were converted.
3) In both cases, those "present fell to the earth."
4) In both cases, a voice spoke which others could not understand.
5) Both were asked by the voice why they were fighting against the work of God.
As far as the metals. It is a well known practice that Mesoamericans melted down their metal objects to make new things...they also did this with Jade and precious stones. Very early in the Nephite history they already treat iron as a precious metal...putting it on the list of taxed metals. Most metal objects were probably melted down reused and therefore date from a different time. Also as I said before ...80% of ALL excavation done in central america dates to after 600 ad and the bOM ends in 400 ad. So very little excavation has been done from the BOM time period. Also the native languages have words for metals from up to 1000 bc. I find it hard to believe they have names for things they don't know exist.
The Mesoamericans might have used a little iron ore, but they never had an iron age:
Iron's hardness, high melting point and the abundance of iron ore sources made iron more desirable and "cheaper" than bronze and contributed greatly to its adoption as the most commonly used metal. The arrival of iron use in various areas is listed below, broadly in chronological order. Because iron working was introduced directly to the Americas and Australasia by European colonization, there was never an iron age in either location.
Source: Iron Age
Former Brigham Young University anthropology professor, Dr. Raymond T. Matheny summed it up about regarding an Iron Industry. Nephite civilization is depicted as having iron and other metal industries; we read of metal swords and breastplates, gold and silver coinage, and even machinery. However, according to Matheny, there is no evidence that any Mesoamerican civilization attained such an advanced industry during Book of Mormon times (terminus ad quo: A.D. 421). He pointed out that an iron industry is not a simple feat involving a few people, but a complex process that requires a specialized socio-economic context and leaves virtually indestructible archaeological evidence.
What makes no sense to me is the ancient peoples in Mesoamerica never spoke or wrote Hebrew in their depiction of any metals or anything else. How could that be if they are supposed to be Hebrew descendents as the LDS claim they are?
Perhaps you are correct that I could have easily read it already. Maybe I will go back and read it at some point. I would not call these people half whits though. Most of my sources are from educated people who were Mormons in good standing of the church (just like you) for many years. They went on their mission and were faithful and dedicated for many years (just like you). Somewhere along the way they decided that instead of simply accept the company line (the current lds doctrines) as pure fact, to actually do the research for themselves going deeper into the history than you or most obedient Mormons have ever gone and independently decided that the evidence does not support that what Joseph Smith taught about is real and nor gave Joseph Smith special authority that was passed on to Gordon Hinckley, etc. They then took the painful step of disassociating with the church instead of continuing on living their life dictated by the LDS powers that be. They realized it really wasn’t so difficult a thing to do after all. Some of them have gone on to put their faith in something real, while some have not made it there at this point. Time will tell for your story.
click on link for real story:
Real Story
Hope all is well for you the next couple of weeks warship.
I will try to check back if you wish to continue.
anti-temple garments. Here...
How does a mark, a red dot in the forehead, equal the curse if the curse is suppose to be actual black skin? It clearly states that the Amalicites were fulfilling the curse that God expressed to Nephi by taking this mark, how does a mark of red in the forehead equal black skin if that was the “curse”?????
It also shows that the skin was a skin girded about their loins to hide their nakedness(this is a girdle garment), these skins were dark bc ……
Greetings warship,
I was able to respond in less than a week!
That’s a good question but you need to brush up on your Mormon history, and not rely solely on the most up to date version of the ever fluid (i.e. changing) doctrine. The alleged curse of the skin was referring to original skin (human flesh) color, and was not meant to be a curse to wear a dark girdle (which they could have immediately taken off and thus voided the ‘curse’ which doesn’t make logical sense either). Now I will agree with you at least that many of the changes made certainly make it more socially acceptable today.
LDS - "Shall I tell you the LAW OF GOD in regard to the AFRICAN race? If the WHITE MAN who belongs to the CHOSEN SEED mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is DEATH ON THE SPOT. This will ALWAYS be so." LDS "Prophet" Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p.110, 1863, emphasis added.
LDS - "And the skins of the Lamanites [native Americans] were DARK, ...which was A CURSE UPON THEM.... And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might PRESERVE HIS PEOPLE, that they might NOT MIX and believe in incorrect traditions WHICH WOULD PROVE THEIR DESTRUCTION." Book of Mormon, Alma 3:6-8, emphasis added.
LDS - "Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became THE FATHER OF AN INFERIOR RACE. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so WHILE TIME ENDURES. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a BLACK SKIN and have been DENIED THE PRIVILEGE OF PRIESTHOOD and the fulness of the blessings of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to FEEL THEIR INFERIORITY and have been SEPARATED from the rest of mankind from the beginning. Enoch saw the people of Canaan, descendants of Cain, and he says, 'and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were DESPISED AMONG ALL PEOPLE.'" LDS "Prophet" Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, pp. 101-102, 1931, emphasis added.
LDS - "...[I]n a broad sense, CASTE SYSTEMS have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the DIVINE DECREE, the resultant RESTRICTIONS AND SEGREGATION ARE RIGHT AND PROPER and have the APPROVAL OF THE LORD. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as A CASTE APART, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should NOT INTERMARRY." LDS "Apostle" Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 108-109, 1966 edition, emphasis added.
Note: Allegedly, Mormonism's doctrines of racial discrimination are "right and proper," actually approved by God!
LDS - "Here are the Lamanites [native Americans].... Their wickedness was not so great as those [Jews] who slew the Son of God. ...Is their curse as great as that of those in Palestine? No, it is light, in comparison. They began to thirst for each other's blood, and massacred each other, from generation to generation, until they SUNK INTO WICKEDNESS, and EVIL principles the most DEGRADING, and have become LOATHSOME and VILE. Still THE CURSE WILL BE REMOVED from them before it will be removed from the children of Judah; and THEY WILL BECOME A "WHITE AND DELIGHTSOME PEOPLE." LDS "Prophet" Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 143, 1854, emphasis added.
LDS - "I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that THEY CANNOT BEAR RULE IN THE PRIESTHOOD, for the curse on them was to REMAIN upon them, until the resedue (sic) of the posterity of Michal (sic) and his wife receive the blessings...and hold the keys of the priesthood.... In the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH THE AFFRICANS (sic) CANNOT HOLD ONE PARTICAL (sic) OF POWER IN GOVERNMENT [within the LDS church]." LDS "Prophet" Brigham Young, Brigham Young Addresses, Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, Feb. 5, 1852, as quoted in Bob Witte's book entitled "Where Does It Say That?," p. 2-9, emphasis added.
But it was changing:
Mormonism contradicts itself:
LDS - "...[W]orthy males of all races can now receive the Melchizedek Priesthood.... It means that members of all races may now be married in the temple, although INTERRACIAL MARRIAGES ARE DISCOURAGED by the Brethren...." LDS "Apostle" Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 526-528, 1979 printing of 1966 edition.
QUOTE
Of course the black and white probably means the pure and unpure, the good and the bad…bc I don’t think any reference to black or white is about skin color in the Bom; but for those who insist it does then 2Nephi:33, above, surely does also.
Yes it currently means Pure & unpure and doesn’t referring to skin color in the 2006 versions of the BOM, but it did specifically refer to skin color for well over the 1st 100 years.
The Book of Mormon stated that when the Lamanites repented of their sins "their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites" (3 Nephi 2:15). The Book of Mormon also promised that in the last days the Lamanites—i.e., the Indians—will repent and "many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:6).
While the Mormon Church leaders taught that Indians were cursed with a dark skin they went a step further with regard to blacks. They claimed that God would not even allow blacks to hold the priesthood. After a great deal of pressure was exerted against them, the Mormon leaders finally had a new revelation granting blacks the priesthood (Deseret News, June 9, 1978).
In The Changing World of Mormonism, pages 324-25, it was written:
One issue that Mormon leaders now seem to be dodging is that concerning skin color. As we pointed out earlier, Mormon theology has always taught that "a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind" (Juvenile Instructor, vol. 3, p. 157). The Book of Mormon itself is filled with the teaching that people with dark skins are cursed. . .
Now that they [Church leaders] have abandoned the idea that blacks cannot hold the priesthood, they should explain . . . if they are repudiating the Book of Mormon teaching that a dark skin is given by God as a "curse." By giving a "revelation" on the blacks without explaining its implications, the Mormon leaders are leaving their people in a dense doctrinal fog.
One of the most embarrassing things about the doctrine concerning the Indians is that they are not becoming "white" as the Book of Mormon prophesied. The anti-Mormon writer Gordon H. Fraser claims that the "skin color" of the Indians converted to Mormonism "has not been altered in the least because of their adherence to the Mormon doctrines" (What Does The Book of Mormon Teach? p. 46).
It now appears that the Mormon leaders are trying to "dissolve" the doctrine that the Indians will turn white after turning to Mormonism. The Church has just released its 1981 printing of the "triple combination" which contains the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. This new publication contains a very important change. Previous editions of the Book of Mormon had said that in the last days the Indians "shall be a white and delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:6). In the new edition this has been altered to read that the Indians "shall be a pure and delightsome people."
The official Church magazine, The Ensign, tries to justify this change by stating:
Most students of latter-day scriptures are aware that from the very first printing typographical errors have crept into the Book of Mormon. . . .
The Prophet himself attempted to correct some of these kinds of errors, but his many duties prevented him from completing the project; and even so, some of his corrections seem to have disappeared again in later editions. For example, the 1830 and 1837 printings of the Book of Mormon contained a prophecy that the Lamanites would one day become "a white and delightsome people" (2 Ne. 30:6). In the 1840 printing, which the Prophet edited, this passage was changed to read "a pure and delightsome people," but for some reason later printings reverted to the original wording. (The Ensign, October 1981, pages 17-18)
It should be noted that Church leaders are unable to produce any documentary evidence to support their claim that this was merely a correction by Joseph Smith of a typographical error. There were originally two handwritten manuscripts for the Book of Mormon—a copy which was written by Joseph Smith's scribes as he dictated it and a second "emended" copy that was prepared for the printer. Unfortunately, most of the first manuscript was destroyed through water damage. The Mormon scholar Stanley R. Larson informs us that this manuscript "does not exist for this section of the text. . . ." ("A Study of Some Textual Variations in the Book of Mormon Comparing the Original and the Printer's Manuscripts and the 1830, the 1837, and the 1840 Editions," Unpublished M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, April 1974, page 283)
Fortunately, the second handwritten manuscript—the copy given to the printer to use to set the type for the first printing of the Book of Mormon—was preserved by Book of Mormon witness Oliver Cowdery and is still in excellent shape. This handwritten manuscript does contain the portion printed as 2 Nephi 30:6. It uses the word "white," and therefore does not support the claim that Joseph Smith was only correcting a typographical error (see Restoration Scriptures, by Richard P. Howard, Independence, Missouri, 1969, p. 49). It should be remembered also that both the first two editions of the Book of Mormon (1830 and 1837) used the word "white." It is especially significant that the 1837 edition retained this reading because the preface to this edition stated that "the whole has been carefully reexamined and compared with the original manuscripts, by elder Joseph Smith, Jr., the translator of the book of Mormon, assisted by the present printer, brother O. Cowdery, . . ." (Book of Mormon, 1837 Edition, Preface, as cited in The Ensign, September 1976, page 79)
Besides all the evidence from the original Book of Mormon manuscript and the first two printed editions, there is another passage in the Book of Mormon which makes it very clear that Joseph Smith believed that the Lamanites' skins could be turned "white" through repentence:
And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; (3 Nephi 2:15)
We have taken this quotation directly from the new "triple combination" to show that the Mormon Church is still bound by the belief that righteousness affects skin color even though they have changed the verse appearing as 2 Nephi 30:6.
The fact that Joseph Smith believed that the Indians' skins would actually become white seems to also be verified by a revelation he gave in 1831. In The Changing World of Mormonism, pages 207-214, we discuss this revelation and show that it was suppressed until 1974 when we printed it in Mormonism Like Watergate? Since that time the Mormon Church Historian Leonard J. Arrington and his assistant Davis Bitton published the important portion of it in their book, The Mormon Experience, page 195:
"For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles."
Like Joseph Smith, President Brigham Young taught that the Indians would "become 'a white and delightsome people' " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 143). While Brigham Young never released the 1831 revelation, there is evidence that he was familiar with its teaching that the Indians should be made white through intermarriage. In a book published in 1852, William Hall commented:
About the time of the breaking up of the camp at Sugar Creek, the people were called together and several speeches delivered to them by Brigham Young, and others. The speech of Young was in substance as follows:
. . . We are now going to the Lamanites, to whom we intend to be messengers of instruction. . . . We will show them that in consequence of their transgressions a curse has been inflicted upon them—in the darkness of their skins. We will have intermarriages with them, they marrying our young women, and we taking their young squaws to wife. By these means it is the will of the Lord that the curse of their color shall be removed and they restored to their pristine beauty. . . (The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed, Cincinnati, 1852, pp. 58-59)
T.B.H. Stenhouse related that Heber C. Kimball, a member of the First Presidency, spoke to some of the missionaries and
told them that he did not see how the modern predictions could well be fulfilled about the Indians becoming "a white and delightsome people" without extending polygamy to the natives, . . . (The Rocky Mountain Saints, 1873, pp. 657-59)
Although Joseph Smith's 1831 revelation commanding Mormons to marry Indians to make them "white" was suppressed, recent leaders have continued to teach the Book of Mormon doctrine that the Indians become white when they turn to Mormonism. Spencer W. Kimball, who became the twelfth President of the Church on December 30, 1973, has strongly endorsed that teaching. In the LDS General Conference, October 1960, Mr. Kimball stated:
I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today . . . they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people. . . . For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. . . . The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.
At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. . . . These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated. (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-23)
The reader will notice that Spencer W. Kimball used the Book of Mormon phrase, "a white and delightsome people." This, of course, is the very phrase that has now been changed to read, "a pure and delightsome people." It is very difficult to see any evidence of inspiration in this whole matter.
In any event, the Church now wants to suppress the Book of Mormon's teaching concerning skin color. Ron Barker, of the Associated Press, questioned Church spokesman Jerry P. Cahill concerning the matter:
Asked whether church members should assume that faithful Mormon Indians would one day become light complexioned, Cahill said they should assume that they will become a "pure and delightsome people." (Salt Lake Tribune, September 30, 1981)
We can probably expect more revisions in Mormon books to cover up this embarrassing doctrine. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, who has recently had to revise his book Mormon Doctrine to conform to the change on the anti-black doctrine, will undoubtedly have to revise his section on the "LAMANITE CURSE." On pages 428-29 of the 1979 printing of Mormon Doctrine we find the following:
. . . a twofold curse came upon the Lamanites: . . ."they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations." (1 Ne. 12:23.) So that they "might not be enticing" unto the Nephites, "the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Ne. 5:20-25; Alma 3:14-16.) . . .
During periods of great righteousness, when groups of Lamanites accepted the gospel and turned to the Lord, the curse was removed from them . . . the curse was removed from a group of Lamanite converts and they became white like the Nephites. (3 Ne. 2:15-16.) . . .
When the gospel is taken to the Lamanites in our day and they come to a knowledge of Christ and of their fathers, then the "scales of darkness" shall fall from their eyes; "and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people." (2 Ne. 30:6.) Finally, before the judgment bar of God, all who have been righteous, Lamanites and Nephites alike, will be free from the curse of spiritual death and the skin of darkness. (Jac. 3:5-9)
We believe, of course, that Apostle McConkie has the right to alter his book in any way he desires. His changes concerning the anti-black doctrine are certainly a step in the right direction. When it comes to the Book of Mormon, however, we wonder how the Mormon leaders can justify altering words that were supposed to have been translated by the power of God.
Source click Here: A White, err um Pure and Delightsome People
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Of course the black and white probably means the pure and unpure, the good and the bad…bc I don’t think any reference to black or white is about skin color in the Bom; but for those who insist it does then 2Nephi:33, above, surely does also. |
Yes it currently means Pure & unpure and doesn’t referring to skin color in the 2006 versions of the BOM, but it did specifically refer to skin color for well over the 1st 100 years.
The Book of Mormon stated that when the Lamanites repented of their sins "their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites" (3 Nephi 2:15). The Book of Mormon also promised that in the last days the Lamanites—i.e., the Indians—will repent and "many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:6).
While the Mormon Church leaders taught that Indians were cursed with a dark skin they went a step further with regard to blacks. They claimed that God would not even allow blacks to hold the priesthood. After a great deal of pressure was exerted against them, the Mormon leaders finally had a new revelation granting blacks the priesthood (Deseret News, June 9, 1978).
In The Changing World of Mormonism, pages 324-25, it was written:
One issue that Mormon leaders now seem to be dodging is that concerning skin color. As we pointed out earlier, Mormon theology has always taught that "a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind" (Juvenile Instructor, vol. 3, p. 157). The Book of Mormon itself is filled with the teaching that people with dark skins are cursed. . .
Now that they [Church leaders] have abandoned the idea that blacks cannot hold the priesthood, they should explain . . . if they are repudiating the Book of Mormon teaching that a dark skin is given by God as a "curse." By giving a "revelation" on the blacks without explaining its implications, the Mormon leaders are leaving their people in a dense doctrinal fog.
One of the most embarrassing things about the doctrine concerning the Indians is that they are not becoming "white" as the Book of Mormon prophesied. The anti-Mormon writer Gordon H. Fraser claims that the "skin color" of the Indians converted to Mormonism "has not been altered in the least because of their adherence to the Mormon doctrines" (What Does The Book of Mormon Teach? p. 46).
It now appears that the Mormon leaders are trying to "dissolve" the doctrine that the Indians will turn white after turning to Mormonism. The Church has just released its 1981 printing of the "triple combination" which contains the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. This new publication contains a very important change. Previous editions of the Book of Mormon had said that in the last days the Indians "shall be a white and delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:6). In the new edition this has been altered to read that the Indians "shall be a pure and delightsome people."
The official Church magazine, The Ensign, tries to justify this change by stating:
Most students of latter-day scriptures are aware that from the very first printing typographical errors have crept into the Book of Mormon. . . .
The Prophet himself attempted to correct some of these kinds of errors, but his many duties prevented him from completing the project; and even so, some of his corrections seem to have disappeared again in later editions. For example, the 1830 and 1837 printings of the Book of Mormon contained a prophecy that the Lamanites would one day become "a white and delightsome people" (2 Ne. 30:6). In the 1840 printing, which the Prophet edited, this passage was changed to read "a pure and delightsome people," but for some reason later printings reverted to the original wording. (The Ensign, October 1981, pages 17-18)
It should be noted that Church leaders are unable to produce any documentary evidence to support their claim that this was merely a correction by Joseph Smith of a typographical error. There were originally two handwritten manuscripts for the Book of Mormon—a copy which was written by Joseph Smith's scribes as he dictated it and a second "emended" copy that was prepared for the printer. Unfortunately, most of the first manuscript was destroyed through water damage. The Mormon scholar Stanley R. Larson informs us that this manuscript "does not exist for this section of the text. . . ." ("A Study of Some Textual Variations in the Book of Mormon Comparing the Original and the Printer's Manuscripts and the 1830, the 1837, and the 1840 Editions," Unpublished M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, April 1974, page 283)
Fortunately, the second handwritten manuscript—the copy given to the printer to use to set the type for the first printing of the Book of Mormon—was preserved by Book of Mormon witness Oliver Cowdery and is still in excellent shape. This handwritten manuscript does contain the portion printed as 2 Nephi 30:6. It uses the word "white," and therefore does not support the claim that Joseph Smith was only correcting a typographical error (see Restoration Scriptures, by Richard P. Howard, Independence, Missouri, 1969, p. 49). It should be remembered also that both the first two editions of the Book of Mormon (1830 and 1837) used the word "white." It is especially significant that the 1837 edition retained this reading because the preface to this edition stated that "the whole has been carefully reexamined and compared with the original manuscripts, by elder Joseph Smith, Jr., the translator of the book of Mormon, assisted by the present printer, brother O. Cowdery, . . ." (Book of Mormon, 1837 Edition, Preface, as cited in The Ensign, September 1976, page 79)
Besides all the evidence from the original Book of Mormon manuscript and the first two printed editions, there is another passage in the Book of Mormon which makes it very clear that Joseph Smith believed that the Lamanites' skins could be turned "white" through repentence:
And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; (3 Nephi 2:15)
We have taken this quotation directly from the new "triple combination" to show that the Mormon Church is still bound by the belief that righteousness affects skin color even though they have changed the verse appearing as 2 Nephi 30:6.
The fact that Joseph Smith believed that the Indians' skins would actually become white seems to also be verified by a revelation he gave in 1831. In The Changing World of Mormonism, pages 207-214, we discuss this revelation and show that it was suppressed until 1974 when we printed it in Mormonism Like Watergate? Since that time the Mormon Church Historian Leonard J. Arrington and his assistant Davis Bitton published the important portion of it in their book, The Mormon Experience, page 195:
"For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles."
Like Joseph Smith, President Brigham Young taught that the Indians would "become 'a white and delightsome people' " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 143). While Brigham Young never released the 1831 revelation, there is evidence that he was familiar with its teaching that the Indians should be made white through intermarriage. In a book published in 1852, William Hall commented:
About the time of the breaking up of the camp at Sugar Creek, the people were called together and several speeches delivered to them by Brigham Young, and others. The speech of Young was in substance as follows:
. . . We are now going to the Lamanites, to whom we intend to be messengers of instruction. . . . We will show them that in consequence of their transgressions a curse has been inflicted upon them—in the darkness of their skins. We will have intermarriages with them, they marrying our young women, and we taking their young squaws to wife. By these means it is the will of the Lord that the curse of their color shall be removed and they restored to their pristine beauty. . . (The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed, Cincinnati, 1852, pp. 58-59)
T.B.H. Stenhouse related that Heber C. Kimball, a member of the First Presidency, spoke to some of the missionaries and
told them that he did not see how the modern predictions could well be fulfilled about the Indians becoming "a white and delightsome people" without extending polygamy to the natives, . . . (The Rocky Mountain Saints, 1873, pp. 657-59)
Although Joseph Smith's 1831 revelation commanding Mormons to marry Indians to make them "white" was suppressed, recent leaders have continued to teach the Book of Mormon doctrine that the Indians become white when they turn to Mormonism. Spencer W. Kimball, who became the twelfth President of the Church on December 30, 1973, has strongly endorsed that teaching. In the LDS General Conference, October 1960, Mr. Kimball stated:
I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today . . . they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people. . . . For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. . . . The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.
At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. . . . These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated. (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-23)
The reader will notice that Spencer W. Kimball used the Book of Mormon phrase, "a white and delightsome people." This, of course, is the very phrase that has now been changed to read, "a pure and delightsome people." It is very difficult to see any evidence of inspiration in this whole matter.
In any event, the Church now wants to suppress the Book of Mormon's teaching concerning skin color. Ron Barker, of the Associated Press, questioned Church spokesman Jerry P. Cahill concerning the matter:
Asked whether church members should assume that faithful Mormon Indians would one day become light complexioned, Cahill said they should assume that they will become a "pure and delightsome people." (Salt Lake Tribune, September 30, 1981)
We can probably expect more revisions in Mormon books to cover up this embarrassing doctrine. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, who has recently had to revise his book Mormon Doctrine to conform to the change on the anti-black doctrine, will undoubtedly have to revise his section on the "LAMANITE CURSE." On pages 428-29 of the 1979 printing of Mormon Doctrine we find the following:
. . . a twofold curse came upon the Lamanites: . . ."they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations." (1 Ne. 12:23.) So that they "might not be enticing" unto the Nephites, "the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Ne. 5:20-25; Alma 3:14-16.) . . .
During periods of great righteousness, when groups of Lamanites accepted the gospel and turned to the Lord, the curse was removed from them . . . the curse was removed from a group of Lamanite converts and they became white like the Nephites. (3 Ne. 2:15-16.) . . .
When the gospel is taken to the Lamanites in our day and they come to a knowledge of Christ and of their fathers, then the "scales of darkness" shall fall from their eyes; "and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people." (2 Ne. 30:6.) Finally, before the judgment bar of God, all who have been righteous, Lamanites and Nephites alike, will be free from the curse of spiritual death and the skin of darkness. (Jac. 3:5-9)
We believe, of course, that Apostle McConkie has the right to alter his book in any way he desires. His changes concerning the anti-black doctrine are certainly a step in the right direction. When it comes to the Book of Mormon, however, we wonder how the Mormon leaders can justify altering words that were supposed to have been translated by the power of God.
Source click Here: A White, err um Pure and Delightsome People
As far as the similarities between the Solomon Spaulding Manuscript.....YOu should read Jeff lindsays parallels to Walt Whitman's Blades of Grass ......written after the bom but far more similarities between it than the BOM and Spaulding...and the stories are still extremely dissimilar. You should read about the people who find parrallels to the history of the 19 and the 20th century.
If Walt Whitman wrote after JS wrote the BOM, any similarities are irrelevant to the real BOM origins since his Blades of Grass could not be source material for JS’ BOM.
QUOTE
I have trouble thinking JS is the most brilliant diabolical plagarist whoever lived. He had a 3rd grade education. And no one has ever been known to pull of such a thing in all of history.
Even though JS did not experience the privileges of obtaining a higher education, he was hardly the simple farmboy who was as dumb and incapable as the chuch paints him out to be. I do not have time at present but may come back to that later (in subsequent weeks
).QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have trouble thinking JS is the most brilliant diabolical plagarist whoever lived. He had a 3rd grade education. And no one has ever been known to pull of such a thing in all of history. |
Even though JS did not experience the privileges of obtaining a higher education, he was hardly the simple farmboy who was as dumb and incapable as the chuch paints him out to be. I do not have time at present but may come back to that later (in subsequent weeks
).The BOm has been read by more people than Walt Whitman, Emerson, Thorough or any other of his contemporaries.
I agree with you that this is probably true, but the level of circulation of a book does not prove its credibility.
QUOTE
ANd I took the trouble to read the Solomon Spaulding manuscript..its not hard its like 25 pages...and your gonna say???? And it doesnt resemble it...read it and see for yourself.
I have not heard of anyone claiming that JS only ‘plagarized a 500 page or more book from a 25 page manuscript.’ The accusation is that material in the Book of Mormon can be examined which appears to be plagiarized from The Maccabees, Shakespeare's Hamlet, Josephus' Wars of the Jews, Solomon Spaulding's Manuscript Found, Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews and the King James Version of the Bible. Also, he probably had some unpublished manuscripts from Solomon Spaulding which he used.
These were all written Prior to JS’s alleged ‘translation’ of the BOM in 1830 which he did not undertake alone but with the aide of others. It is extremely significant that both Ethan Smith and Spaulding both penned works which were available in surrounding areas of where JS lived before JS ever wrote the BOM. The Great Mormon Historian BH Roberts compiled a list of similarities between E Smith’s View of the Hebrews and the BOM and concluded that View of the Hebrews could have been one of the human sources for the contents of the Book of Mormon. In a another book by Vernal Holley, called BOOK OF MORMON AUTHORSHIP: A CLOSER LOOK, (Ogden: Zenos, 1983), he concluded as other Mormons have that: the outlines of the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding text are "essentially the same”, Both records claim to have been found in "the same way"; and both were "written for the same purpose."
The LDS Church now concedes that Smith used the King James Bible as one of his primary sources when it came to extended quotes from the Bible. (Sidney B. Sperry, BOOK OF MORMON COMPENDIUM (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1968), 507. The long passages quoted from Isaiah as well as from Malachi and other books of the Bible have forced them to this admission. This causes a problem, because the official position of the Church for many years was that the Urim and Thummim which accompanied the golden plates was the exclusive means of translation and that every word of the Book of Mormon was divinely translated.
1. The New Testament portion of the KJV is often quoted in the Old Testament portion of the Book of Mormon. Words of Jesus quoted almost without change before Christ's birth in the Book of Mormon are as follows: "Ye must pray always, and not faint" (2 Ne. 32:9; 14:12/Luke 18:1); "everlasting fire prepared his angels" (Mosiah 26:27; 11:135/Mat. 25:41); "then shall the righteous shine forth in the kingdom of God" (Alma 40:25; 19:59/Mat. 13:43).54
2. Words of the Apostle Paul are nearly or exactly quoted supposedly long before St. Paul's birth in the Old Testament portion of the Book of Mormon: "steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works" (Mosiah 5:15; 3:21/I Cor. 15:58); "mortal shall put on immortality" (Enos 27;46; I Cor.15:53); "the nurture and admonition of the Lord" (Enos 1; l/Eph. 6:4).55
3. The books of Hebrews and Revelation are also quoted or closely paraphrased in the Old Testament portion of the Book of Mormon: The Spirit is "the same yesterday, today, and forever" (2 Ne. 2:4; 1:65/Heb. 13:8); believers "endured the crosses of the world, and despised the shame" (2 Ne. 9:18; 6:42/Heb.12:2); "if their works have been filthiness they must needs be filthy" (I Ne. 15:33; 4:55/Rev. 22:11).56
4. Sometimes, the author forgets to change the tense from the past to the future tense when attempting to prophesy about the things to come: "the Lamb of God did fulfill all righteousness in being baptized by water?...after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him...he having set the example" (2 Ne. 31:5-10; 13:8-11).57 In Mosiah 16:6; 8:79, which was supposed to have been written about 148 B.C., such an error is made but then caught later: "now if Christ had not come into the world, speaking of things to come as though they have already come..."58
5. Old Testament Book of Mormon characters were modeled after New Testament persons.
Note the following comparison between Alma and Paul:59
1) Both tried to "destroy the Church" before their conversions.
2) -were on a "mission of persecution" the day they were converted.
3) In both cases, those "present fell to the earth."
4) In both cases, a voice spoke which others could not understand.
5) Both were asked by the voice why they were fighting against the work of God.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ANd I took the trouble to read the Solomon Spaulding manuscript..its not hard its like 25 pages...and your gonna say???? And it doesnt resemble it...read it and see for yourself. |
I have not heard of anyone claiming that JS only ‘plagarized a 500 page or more book from a 25 page manuscript.’ The accusation is that material in the Book of Mormon can be examined which appears to be plagiarized from The Maccabees, Shakespeare's Hamlet, Josephus' Wars of the Jews, Solomon Spaulding's Manuscript Found, Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews and the King James Version of the Bible. Also, he probably had some unpublished manuscripts from Solomon Spaulding which he used.
These were all written Prior to JS’s alleged ‘translation’ of the BOM in 1830 which he did not undertake alone but with the aide of others. It is extremely significant that both Ethan Smith and Spaulding both penned works which were available in surrounding areas of where JS lived before JS ever wrote the BOM. The Great Mormon Historian BH Roberts compiled a list of similarities between E Smith’s View of the Hebrews and the BOM and concluded that View of the Hebrews could have been one of the human sources for the contents of the Book of Mormon. In a another book by Vernal Holley, called BOOK OF MORMON AUTHORSHIP: A CLOSER LOOK, (Ogden: Zenos, 1983), he concluded as other Mormons have that: the outlines of the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding text are "essentially the same”, Both records claim to have been found in "the same way"; and both were "written for the same purpose."
The LDS Church now concedes that Smith used the King James Bible as one of his primary sources when it came to extended quotes from the Bible. (Sidney B. Sperry, BOOK OF MORMON COMPENDIUM (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1968), 507. The long passages quoted from Isaiah as well as from Malachi and other books of the Bible have forced them to this admission. This causes a problem, because the official position of the Church for many years was that the Urim and Thummim which accompanied the golden plates was the exclusive means of translation and that every word of the Book of Mormon was divinely translated.
1. The New Testament portion of the KJV is often quoted in the Old Testament portion of the Book of Mormon. Words of Jesus quoted almost without change before Christ's birth in the Book of Mormon are as follows: "Ye must pray always, and not faint" (2 Ne. 32:9; 14:12/Luke 18:1); "everlasting fire prepared his angels" (Mosiah 26:27; 11:135/Mat. 25:41); "then shall the righteous shine forth in the kingdom of God" (Alma 40:25; 19:59/Mat. 13:43).54
2. Words of the Apostle Paul are nearly or exactly quoted supposedly long before St. Paul's birth in the Old Testament portion of the Book of Mormon: "steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works" (Mosiah 5:15; 3:21/I Cor. 15:58); "mortal shall put on immortality" (Enos 27;46; I Cor.15:53); "the nurture and admonition of the Lord" (Enos 1; l/Eph. 6:4).55
3. The books of Hebrews and Revelation are also quoted or closely paraphrased in the Old Testament portion of the Book of Mormon: The Spirit is "the same yesterday, today, and forever" (2 Ne. 2:4; 1:65/Heb. 13:8); believers "endured the crosses of the world, and despised the shame" (2 Ne. 9:18; 6:42/Heb.12:2); "if their works have been filthiness they must needs be filthy" (I Ne. 15:33; 4:55/Rev. 22:11).56
4. Sometimes, the author forgets to change the tense from the past to the future tense when attempting to prophesy about the things to come: "the Lamb of God did fulfill all righteousness in being baptized by water?...after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him...he having set the example" (2 Ne. 31:5-10; 13:8-11).57 In Mosiah 16:6; 8:79, which was supposed to have been written about 148 B.C., such an error is made but then caught later: "now if Christ had not come into the world, speaking of things to come as though they have already come..."58
5. Old Testament Book of Mormon characters were modeled after New Testament persons.
Note the following comparison between Alma and Paul:59
1) Both tried to "destroy the Church" before their conversions.
2) -were on a "mission of persecution" the day they were converted.
3) In both cases, those "present fell to the earth."
4) In both cases, a voice spoke which others could not understand.
5) Both were asked by the voice why they were fighting against the work of God.
As far as the metals. It is a well known practice that Mesoamericans melted down their metal objects to make new things...they also did this with Jade and precious stones. Very early in the Nephite history they already treat iron as a precious metal...putting it on the list of taxed metals. Most metal objects were probably melted down reused and therefore date from a different time. Also as I said before ...80% of ALL excavation done in central america dates to after 600 ad and the bOM ends in 400 ad. So very little excavation has been done from the BOM time period. Also the native languages have words for metals from up to 1000 bc. I find it hard to believe they have names for things they don't know exist.
The Mesoamericans might have used a little iron ore, but they never had an iron age:
Iron's hardness, high melting point and the abundance of iron ore sources made iron more desirable and "cheaper" than bronze and contributed greatly to its adoption as the most commonly used metal. The arrival of iron use in various areas is listed below, broadly in chronological order. Because iron working was introduced directly to the Americas and Australasia by European colonization, there was never an iron age in either location.
Source: Iron Age
Former Brigham Young University anthropology professor, Dr. Raymond T. Matheny summed it up about regarding an Iron Industry. Nephite civilization is depicted as having iron and other metal industries; we read of metal swords and breastplates, gold and silver coinage, and even machinery. However, according to Matheny, there is no evidence that any Mesoamerican civilization attained such an advanced industry during Book of Mormon times (terminus ad quo: A.D. 421). He pointed out that an iron industry is not a simple feat involving a few people, but a complex process that requires a specialized socio-economic context and leaves virtually indestructible archaeological evidence.
What makes no sense to me is the ancient peoples in Mesoamerica never spoke or wrote Hebrew in their depiction of any metals or anything else. How could that be if they are supposed to be Hebrew descendents as the LDS claim they are?
QUOTE
In the time you took reading a bunch of half whits imaginary links to the bOm, you could have read it already ….
Perhaps you are correct that I could have easily read it already. Maybe I will go back and read it at some point. I would not call these people half whits though. Most of my sources are from educated people who were Mormons in good standing of the church (just like you) for many years. They went on their mission and were faithful and dedicated for many years (just like you). Somewhere along the way they decided that instead of simply accept the company line (the current lds doctrines) as pure fact, to actually do the research for themselves going deeper into the history than you or most obedient Mormons have ever gone and independently decided that the evidence does not support that what Joseph Smith taught about is real and nor gave Joseph Smith special authority that was passed on to Gordon Hinckley, etc. They then took the painful step of disassociating with the church instead of continuing on living their life dictated by the LDS powers that be. They realized it really wasn’t so difficult a thing to do after all. Some of them have gone on to put their faith in something real, while some have not made it there at this point. Time will tell for your story.
click on link for real story:
Real Story
Hope all is well for you the next couple of weeks warship.
I will try to check back if you wish to continue.
I don't think this is part of the ever changing doctrines of the church, I don't think they advocate this theory. I won't argue the church's racist past...I am not a member of the church and believe the church was in apostacy as soon as Brigham Young took over. JS made Elijah Abel, a black man, one of the quorum of 70 and gave him full priesthood. Go to Black Mormon's Homepage and see what they have to say. JS ran for president with the platform of emancipation and equality
over a decade before the abolitionists movement and Lincoln. In fact JS heavily distributed pamphlets about equality in Lincoln's home state when Lincoln would have been a teenager. Many have speculated that that very flyer might probably have made its way into the hands of old Lincoln and perhaps inspired him.
The church after JS..racist, no argument from me there.
The church during JS, not racist...
The BOM, not racist....as my post proves. I have made this argument in several forums and no one has been able to answer my question about the mark in the forehead. The text explicitly states the skins were girdles about their loins. There is not one mention of black or white epidermis and until someone answers my question or can disprove me using the BOm(which cannot be done, I've scrutinized every verse in relation to this subject) I will remain convinced that the bOm says absolutely nothing about actual epidermis color (race).
Can you show me where it referred to skin color in any edition??????????
I have a replica of the 1830 edition and a 1920 and 1940 and 1980. Besides punctuation changes they are indistinguishable. They all use the exact grammar. Its true some white delightsome verses have been changed to pure and delightsome, but as I showed these references were referring to the girdle garments being made white and not skin color. The same language was used in the bible as I showed you...is the bible racist? So they changed it to a synonym bc a bunch of ignorant people(including themselves for 100 years) dont understand symbology.
Can you show me where it referred to skin color in any edition??????????
I have a replica of the 1830 edition and a 1920 and 1940 and 1980. Besides punctuation changes they are indistinguishable. They all use the exact grammar. Its true some white delightsome verses have been changed to pure and delightsome, but as I showed these references were referring to the girdle garments being made white and not skin color. The same language was used in the bible as I showed you...is the bible racist? So they changed it to a synonym bc a bunch of ignorant people(including themselves for 100 years) dont understand symbology.
the 1830 and 1837 printings of the Book of Mormon contained a prophecy that the Lamanites would one day become "a white and delightsome people" (2 Ne. 30:6). In the 1840 printing, which the Prophet edited, this passage was changed to read "a pure and delightsome people," but for some reason later printings reverted to the original wording. (The Ensign, October 1981, pages 17-18)
Thats bc JS understood it was symbology and probably so did the people who changed it back. JS did it bc I think too many people were reading the race thing into it and he did not agree or like that. Later people thought "it is just a synonym, people will have to grow up and realize that the jews along with dozens of other cultures use the terms black and white as symbols for purity and filthiness" so they changed it back. Now, imagine your JS and you faked the bOm, would you go through the trouble of conceiving a plot line of blacks against whites, writing that entire book out, publishing said book, and just a couple of years later say....Well, I can change all the work and my entire premise by changing one word in two verses?
Who would do that? Who would write a 500 page book with one intention and turn on their heels on it?
Thats my whole point, irrelevant similarities can be found in two books which have no relation. The fact that the BOM has more irrelevant similarities with blades of grass than it does with solomon spaulding is indicative of their being no relationship of the bOM to Spaulding or View of Hebrews.
Thats my whole point, irrelevant similarities can be found in two books which have no relation. The fact that the BOM has more irrelevant similarities with blades of grass than it does with solomon spaulding is indicative of their being no relationship of the bOM to Spaulding or View of Hebrews.
What makes no sense to me is the ancient peoples in Mesoamerica never spoke or wrote Hebrew in their depiction of any metals or anything else. How could that be if they are supposed to be Hebrew descendents as the LDS claim they are?
Well I guess you would have to know the bOM for it to make sense. In the bOM their native tongue was lost soon after their arrival due to competition of other languages. This makes an argument for other cultures that are far more numerous than the Nephites who retained their language only for writing it seems, much like latin was the language of the learned in their writing but it was a dead oral language. This also explains why evidence for machinery etc would not exist in the larger city state community of the maya that they were taking a small part in with a few city states. Lets not also forget about the pillaging and fires that come with destroying a people as the LAmanites did the Nephites.
Are you for real with that. That sounds like some cliche about how to prosylitize to mormons. And from what I've seen in your posts so far... it seems like most of your info is from cut and paste of critics of the church websites that are about a decade old in their research.
Seriously, please stop cutting and pasting 90% of your posts to me. It is frustrating and it makes you look uneducated. You cannot win an argument by sheer volume.
I hope you have a good couple of weeks Issachar
over a decade before the abolitionists movement and Lincoln. In fact JS heavily distributed pamphlets about equality in Lincoln's home state when Lincoln would have been a teenager. Many have speculated that that very flyer might probably have made its way into the hands of old Lincoln and perhaps inspired him.
The church after JS..racist, no argument from me there.
The church during JS, not racist...
The BOM, not racist....as my post proves. I have made this argument in several forums and no one has been able to answer my question about the mark in the forehead. The text explicitly states the skins were girdles about their loins. There is not one mention of black or white epidermis and until someone answers my question or can disprove me using the BOm(which cannot be done, I've scrutinized every verse in relation to this subject) I will remain convinced that the bOm says absolutely nothing about actual epidermis color (race).
QUOTE
Yes it currently means Pure & unpure and doesn’t referring to skin color in the 2006 versions of the BOM, but it did specifically refer to skin color for well over the 1st 100 years.
Can you show me where it referred to skin color in any edition??????????
I have a replica of the 1830 edition and a 1920 and 1940 and 1980. Besides punctuation changes they are indistinguishable. They all use the exact grammar. Its true some white delightsome verses have been changed to pure and delightsome, but as I showed these references were referring to the girdle garments being made white and not skin color. The same language was used in the bible as I showed you...is the bible racist? So they changed it to a synonym bc a bunch of ignorant people(including themselves for 100 years) dont understand symbology.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes it currently means Pure & unpure and doesn’t referring to skin color in the 2006 versions of the BOM, but it did specifically refer to skin color for well over the 1st 100 years. |
Can you show me where it referred to skin color in any edition??????????
I have a replica of the 1830 edition and a 1920 and 1940 and 1980. Besides punctuation changes they are indistinguishable. They all use the exact grammar. Its true some white delightsome verses have been changed to pure and delightsome, but as I showed these references were referring to the girdle garments being made white and not skin color. The same language was used in the bible as I showed you...is the bible racist? So they changed it to a synonym bc a bunch of ignorant people(including themselves for 100 years) dont understand symbology.
the 1830 and 1837 printings of the Book of Mormon contained a prophecy that the Lamanites would one day become "a white and delightsome people" (2 Ne. 30:6). In the 1840 printing, which the Prophet edited, this passage was changed to read "a pure and delightsome people," but for some reason later printings reverted to the original wording. (The Ensign, October 1981, pages 17-18)
Thats bc JS understood it was symbology and probably so did the people who changed it back. JS did it bc I think too many people were reading the race thing into it and he did not agree or like that. Later people thought "it is just a synonym, people will have to grow up and realize that the jews along with dozens of other cultures use the terms black and white as symbols for purity and filthiness" so they changed it back. Now, imagine your JS and you faked the bOm, would you go through the trouble of conceiving a plot line of blacks against whites, writing that entire book out, publishing said book, and just a couple of years later say....Well, I can change all the work and my entire premise by changing one word in two verses?
Who would do that? Who would write a 500 page book with one intention and turn on their heels on it?
QUOTE
If Walt Whitman wrote after JS wrote the BOM, any similarities are irrelevant to the real BOM origins since his Blades of Grass could not be source material for JS’ BOM.
Thats my whole point, irrelevant similarities can be found in two books which have no relation. The fact that the BOM has more irrelevant similarities with blades of grass than it does with solomon spaulding is indicative of their being no relationship of the bOM to Spaulding or View of Hebrews.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If Walt Whitman wrote after JS wrote the BOM, any similarities are irrelevant to the real BOM origins since his Blades of Grass could not be source material for JS’ BOM. |
Thats my whole point, irrelevant similarities can be found in two books which have no relation. The fact that the BOM has more irrelevant similarities with blades of grass than it does with solomon spaulding is indicative of their being no relationship of the bOM to Spaulding or View of Hebrews.
What makes no sense to me is the ancient peoples in Mesoamerica never spoke or wrote Hebrew in their depiction of any metals or anything else. How could that be if they are supposed to be Hebrew descendents as the LDS claim they are?
Well I guess you would have to know the bOM for it to make sense. In the bOM their native tongue was lost soon after their arrival due to competition of other languages. This makes an argument for other cultures that are far more numerous than the Nephites who retained their language only for writing it seems, much like latin was the language of the learned in their writing but it was a dead oral language. This also explains why evidence for machinery etc would not exist in the larger city state community of the maya that they were taking a small part in with a few city states. Lets not also forget about the pillaging and fires that come with destroying a people as the LAmanites did the Nephites.
QUOTE
Perhaps you are correct that I could have easily read it already. Maybe I will go back and read it at some point. I would not call these people half whits though. Most of my sources are from educated people who were Mormons in good standing of the church (just like you) for many years. They went on their mission and were faithful and dedicated for many years (just like you). Somewhere along the way they decided that instead of simply accept the company line (the current lds doctrines) as pure fact, to actually do the research for themselves going deeper into the history than you or most obedient Mormons have ever gone and independently decided that the evidence does not support that what Joseph Smith taught about is real and nor gave Joseph Smith special authority that was passed on to Gordon Hinckley, etc. They then took the painful step of disassociating with the church instead of continuing on living their life dictated by the LDS powers that be. They realized it really wasn’t so difficult a thing to do after all. Some of them have gone on to put their faith in something real, while some have not made it there at this point. Time will tell for your story.
Are you for real with that. That sounds like some cliche about how to prosylitize to mormons. And from what I've seen in your posts so far... it seems like most of your info is from cut and paste of critics of the church websites that are about a decade old in their research.
Seriously, please stop cutting and pasting 90% of your posts to me. It is frustrating and it makes you look uneducated. You cannot win an argument by sheer volume.
I hope you have a good couple of weeks Issachar
QUOTE (warship+Aug 19 2006, 08:49 AM)
I don't think this is part of the ever changing doctrines of the church, I don't think they advocate this theory. I won't argue the church's racist past...I am not a member of the church and believe the church was in apostacy as soon as Brigham Young took over.
warship,
Hope all is well. My apologies for the long delay, I have been loaded up at work and the weeks flown by.
Yes of course they don’t wish to advocate this theory. It is too shady/not politically correct to sell the full historical doctrines or what used to go on.
I don’t quite understand what you mean warship when you say you are not a member of the church. Will you please elaborate for me?
Are you implying any of the following:
1.) You have officially disassociated fellowship your assigned Ward as in:
Leaving the Mornom church
That doesn’t seem likely to me.
2.) You’re a RLDS, and consider the Utah LDS branch to be wayward from the true Mormon faith.
3.) You are a fundamentalist and you are upset that the other LDS groups gave up polygamy, etc.!?
Fundamentalist LDS
That doesn’t see likely either.
4.) Are just ‘pulling my leg’ in appearing to distance yourself from the LDS church due to me knowing some of the (non –PC) Mormon history.
5.) Are not active, but still listed as a member.
6.) Other, I am out of guesses & off-base so maybe you can help.
Thank you for the heads up on the Black Mormon’s Homepage, I had not seen that site before. It’s an eloquent attempt to rewrite history of race relations in the Mormon church by a carefully chosen omission of what was really taught through the years. To borrower a cliché from the LDS, they must ‘give them milk before meat’ so as not to scare people off as they have in some instances:
Yes, I was aware that Elijah Abel was ordained as a priest. He also went on a mission after the Mormons went to Utah. There may have been at least one other black ordained to the priesthood during Joseph Smith's life, but Elijah Abel was the only one mentioned by LDS historian Andrew Jenson:
Abel, Elijah, the only colored man who is known to have been ordained to the priesthood . . . was ordained an elder March 3, 1836, and a seventy April 4, 1841, an exception having been made in his case with regard to the general rule of the church in relation to colored people (L.D.S. Biographical Encyclopedia, vol. 3, p. 577, 1901-1936, Deseret News).
He was not allowed to participate in the temple endowments, however. (see Dialogue, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 28-29). Why not?
Thank you for the heads up on the Black Mormon’s Homepage, I had not seen that site before. It’s an eloquent attempt to rewrite history of race relations in the Mormon church by a carefully chosen omission of what was really taught through the years. To borrower a cliché from the LDS, they must ‘give them milk before meat’ so as not to scare people off as they have in some instances:
Yes, I was aware that Elijah Abel was ordained as a priest. He also went on a mission after the Mormons went to Utah. There may have been at least one other black ordained to the priesthood during Joseph Smith's life, but Elijah Abel was the only one mentioned by LDS historian Andrew Jenson:
Abel, Elijah, the only colored man who is known to have been ordained to the priesthood . . . was ordained an elder March 3, 1836, and a seventy April 4, 1841, an exception having been made in his case with regard to the general rule of the church in relation to colored people (L.D.S. Biographical Encyclopedia, vol. 3, p. 577, 1901-1936, Deseret News).
He was not allowed to participate in the temple endowments, however. (see Dialogue, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 28-29). Why not?
The church after JS..racist, no argument from me there. The church during JS, not racist...
Re: Post JS Mormonism, Its Better late to suddenly have a ‘new revelation’ to change the racist stance of the LDS church than never:
As far back as 1963, Donald Ira French, Jr., wrote a letter in which he remarked:
Sir: As an elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it has long seemed incredible to me that a church with so much forward vision in social welfare and higher education can be so backward in its outlook on a segment of the human race that is also supposed to be among our brothers. . . .
The revelation that the church is talking about with respect to the Negro and the priesthood should have been sought 50 years ago—not now when we are forced into looking for one. Even if a revelation should come now, we have compromised our position because it looks as if we have been forced into seeking it, which will be true. (Time, Nov. l, 1963)
Since almost every male in the Mormon Church has some sort of priesthood office, the restriction on blacks meant that they could not participate in any leadership position. In addition to this, Mormonism teaches that a person must be married in the temple in order to achieve the highest level of heaven, or eternal life. However, the priesthood ban on blacks meant that they could not have a temple marriage, thus keeping them from achieving eternal life, also referred to as exaltation. Are we to supposed that all the blacks who never had this privilege can be restored by some secret temple babtism for thed dead ceremony?
While the ban has been lifted the LDS Church has yet to clarify its theological view on race or why the ban was ever instituted in the first place.
The abolitionist movement actually started in England in the 1700’s when the religious conviction of Quakers and others gripped people to oppose it. The first substantial anti-slavery petition was sent to Parliament in 1783 and in 1789 William Wilberforce gave parliament’s first speech against the slave trade but it took them many years to defeat it. The first American abolition society was formed in 1775. Ben Franklin was it’s first president when it was reorganized several years after the War of Independence. The preaching of Lyman Beecher and Nathaniel Taylor in New England and the religious revivals that began in W New York state in 1824 under Charles G. Finney swept much of the North, created a powerful impulse toward social reform—emancipation of the slaves as well as temperance and women's rights. (The historical records of revivals in western NY conflict the timing of JS’s alleged 1820 “first vision” but that is a different topic.) The abolition movement in the US began to reach crusading proportions in the 1830s. Is more likely that JS (or his spokesmen) were just citing popular Northern sentiment of the day.
________________________________________________
About JS run for president, Some former members of the LDS church compiled the following about Nauvoo, Illinois and the JS’s political ambitions:
(The tension in the state is often portrayed as)… just an extension of the seemingly senseless persecution endured by the Mormons through the years.
However, thousands of Mormons were pouring into Nauvoo, which threatened to give them tremendous political power and the ability to affect local elections.
Robert S. Wicks and Fred R. Foister observed:
With ten to twelve thousand inhabitants in 1843, Nauvoo was the second largest city in Illinois, rivaled only by Chicago. The Holy City, as it was often called, dominated the economy of the region (Junius & Joseph, p. 22).
Also during the early 1840's Smith had secretly introduced a number of new doctrines and practices. Besides introducing plural marriage, he secretly instituted the Council of Fifty, a secret governing body, which was a forerunner of his plan to set up a theocracy, the literal Kingdom of God on Earth.
When Smith set up the Nauvoo Legion, with himself elevated to "Lieutenant General," the non-Mormon community became fearful of the militant stance of the Mormons. On July 21, 1841, the Warsaw Signal reported:
How military these people are becoming! Everything they say or do seems to breathe the spirit of military tactics. Their prophet appears, on all occasions, in his sp[l]endid regimental dress signs his name Lieut. General, and more titles are to be found in the Nauvoo Legion, than any one book on military tactics can produce; . . . Truly fighting must be a part of the creed of these Saints! (Warsaw Signal, July 21, 1841).
D. Michael Quinn observed that
the Nauvoo Legion was no ordinary militia. By 1842 the legion had 2,000 troops, by far the largest single militia in Illinois. Within two years, the Nauvoo Legion had nearly 3,000 soldiers. By comparison the U.S. army had less than 8,500 soldiers that year (The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p. 106).
Besides this, the Mormons tended to vote as a block. Thomas Ford, Governor of Illinois from 1842-1846, made these observations:
But the great cause of popular fury was, that the Mormons at several preceding elections had cast their vote as a unit, thereby making the fact apparent that no one could aspire to the honors or offices of the country, within the sphere of their influence, without their approbation and votes. . . .
This one principle and practice of theirs arrayed against them in deadly hostility all aspirants for office who were not sure of their support, all who have been unsuccessful in elections, and all who were too proud to court their influence, with all their friends and connections (History of Illinois, by Thomas Ford, 1854, pp. 329-330).
Furthermore, Smith had decided to run for President of the United States. Governor Ford commented:
To crown the whole folly of the Mormons, in the spring of 1844, Joe Smith announced himself as a candidate for president of the United States. His followers were confident that he would be elected. Two or three thousand missionaries were immediately sent out to preach their religion, and to electioneer in favor of their prophet for the presidency. This folly at once covered that people with ridicule in the minds of all sensible men, and brought them into conflict with the zealots and bigots of all political parties; as the arrogance and extravagance of their religious pretensions had already aroused the opposition of all other denominations in religion (History of Illinois, p. 321).
Robert S. Wicks and Fred R. Foister give the following assessment of Smith's bid for the presidency:
For the thirty-eight-year-old prophet Joseph, the American presidency was only the beginning. His publicly stated motivation for seeking the presidential chair was to facilitate compensating the Saints for their losses—of life, land, and property—during years of persecution in Missouri and their subsequent expulsion from the state. His private vision (initially made known only to a select inner circle of confidants) was even more ambitious. He prophesied the demise of the United States government within his own lifetime and proclaimed that his political Kingdom of God would ultimately overthrow all earthly regimes in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Smith's dual political agendas were managed by a secret Council of Fifty, organized as the nucleus of a new world government. . . . To Joseph's opponents, the prospect of merging church and state in America meant a frightening, and unacceptable, repudiation of a cornerstone of the constitution (Junius & Joseph, p. 1).
Since the community was already upset because the Mormons had a militia and voted as a block, when Smith entered the political arena it just added to people's apprehension.
________________________
Racism in Early Mormonism
Joseph Smith seems to have accepted the prevalent view of his day that darker skinned people were not as favored by God as white skinned people. This attitude is reflected in the Book of Mormon, which tells the story of a group of Israelites who fled Jerusalem about 600 BC and came to America. They soon divided into two groups, the righteous Nephites, who were "white", and the wicked Lamanites, who were cursed with "a skin of blackness" (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 5:21). The story claims that when Lamanites converted to Christianity "their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites" (3 Nephi 2:14-16). The Introduction to the current Book of Mormon maintains that the Lamanites "are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."
Even though early Mormonism reflected many of the same racial attitudes of the larger community, they did not restrict church participation on the basis of race. Viewing the Native Americans as descendents of the Book of Mormon people, Joseph Smith referred to them as "Lamanites." In 1830 he inaugurated a mission to the Indians in Missouri (see Doctrine and Covenants 32:2).
Armand Mauss commented:
In assessing the significance of Mormon relationships with the Indians during the lifetime of Joseph Smith, one must concede the part that these relationships played in inciting the hostility of other Americans against the Mormons, especially in Missouri. . . . Prophecies in the unique Mormon scriptures, as well as some Mormon commentary on those prophecies, seemed to justify such suspicions. When the Book of Mormon has Christ promising that the "remnant of Jacob" (i.e., Indians) shall go among the unrepentant Gentiles "as a young lion among the flocks of sheep" (3 Nephi 21:12-13), it would make the Gentiles wonder. Nor would they likely be reassured by public proclamations warning the unrepentant Gentiles that God is about to sweep them off the land because of the "cries of the red men, whom ye and your fathers have dispossessed and driven from their lands" . . . As part of an emerging separate ethnic identity, the Mormons began to define their destined homeland as extending from Wisconsin down to Texas and from Missouri across to the Rockies and even beyond, with the Indians as partners in building Zion throughout that entire region (All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage, by Armand L. Mauss, p. 55, University of Illinois Press, 2003).
Soon after publishing the Book of Mormon in 1830 Joseph Smith began working on the Book of Moses (printed in the Pearl of Great Price) which reflected the same community concept that blacks descended from Cain (see Moses 7:8, 12, 22). Even though the Mormons at that time accepted the common idea that blacks were from the cursed lineage of Cain they did not view this as restricting their church participation. A few blacks were baptized and at least two were ordained to the priesthood.
When Mormons started settling in Missouri in the early 1830's their attitude toward Native Americans and blacks became a concern of their neighbors. Many Missourians worried that Smith's church, founded in New York, was anti-slavery (see Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 12).
To appease their slave-holding neighbors, on July 16, 1833, the Mormons published an article in their newspaper stating:
". . . our intention was not only to stop free people of color from emigrating to this state, but to prevent them from being admitted as members of the Church" (Evening and the Morning Star, July 16, 1833).
Writing in 1836 Joseph Smith stated:
I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall. . . . It is my privilege then to name certain passages of the Bible . . . "And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren . . ." (Gen. IX:25) . . . I can say, the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come . . . (History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 438).
Oddly, right at the time Smith seems to have been developing his racial doctrines he allowed the ordination of a black named Elijah Abel. Even though Elijah Abel was allowed to retain his priesthood and go on a mission after the Mormons came to Utah, he was not allowed to participate in the temple endowments (see Dialogue, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 28-29).
In 1842 Joseph Smith published his Book of Abraham, which is part of the Pearl of Great Price, in the church-owned Times and Seasons. This new work reflected Smith's growing racist attitude towards blacks and priesthood:
Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, . . . From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham 1:21-22).
Further on in the same chapter we read that Pharaoh, being a descendent of Ham, could not have the priesthood:
Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood . . . (Book of Abraham 1:27).
LDS author Stephen Taggert observed:
With the publication of The Book of Abraham all of the elements for the Church's policy of denying the priesthood to Negroes were present. The curse of Canaan motif borrowed from Southern fundamentalism was being supported with the Church by a foundation of proslavery statements and attitudes which had emerged during the years of crisis in Missouri. . . . (Mormonism's Negro Policy: Social and Historical Origins, by Stephen G. Taggart, pp. 62-63, University of Utah Press, 1970).
Doctrine of Pre-Existence
During this time Joseph Smith started formulating his doctrine of man's pre-earth life. Preaching in 1844, Joseph Smith taught:
The mind of man is as immortal as God himself . . . God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all (History of the Church, vol. 6, pp. 310-311).
The Book of Abraham explains that those who were "noble" in their pre-earth life [man's first estate] were to be the "rulers" on earth [man's second estate] (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham 3:22-23). This led to an interpretation that everyone's birth on earth is a direct result of his/her worthiness in a prior life in heaven. Thus those less valiant were born black while the righteous were born white, with the most worthy being born into Mormon families. In 1845 LDS Apostle Orson Hyde explained that blacks were inferior spirits in the pre-earth state:
At the time the devil was cast out of heaven, there were some spirits that did not know who had authority, whether God or the devil. They consequently did not take a very active part on either side, but rather thought the devil had been abused, . . . These spirits were not considered bad enough to be cast down to hell, and never have bodies; neither were they considered worthy of an honourable body on this earth: . . . But those spirits in heaven that rather lent an influence to the devil, thinking he had a little the best right to govern, but did not take a very active part any way were required to come into the world and take bodies in the accursed lineage of Canaan; and hence the Negro or African race (Speech of Elder Orson Hyde, delivered before the High Priests' Quorum, in Nauvoo, April 27, 1845, printed by John Taylor, p. 30).
The abolitionist movement actually started in England in the 1700’s when the religious conviction of Quakers and others gripped people to oppose it. The first substantial anti-slavery petition was sent to Parliament in 1783 and in 1789 William Wilberforce gave parliament’s first speech against the slave trade but it took them many years to defeat it. The first American abolition society was formed in 1775. Ben Franklin was it’s first president when it was reorganized several years after the War of Independence. The preaching of Lyman Beecher and Nathaniel Taylor in New England and the religious revivals that began in W New York state in 1824 under Charles G. Finney swept much of the North, created a powerful impulse toward social reform—emancipation of the slaves as well as temperance and women's rights. (The historical records of revivals in western NY conflict the timing of JS’s alleged 1820 “first vision” but that is a different topic.) The abolition movement in the US began to reach crusading proportions in the 1830s. Is more likely that JS (or his spokesmen) were just citing popular Northern sentiment of the day.
________________________________________________
About JS run for president, Some former members of the LDS church compiled the following about Nauvoo, Illinois and the JS’s political ambitions:
(The tension in the state is often portrayed as)… just an extension of the seemingly senseless persecution endured by the Mormons through the years.
However, thousands of Mormons were pouring into Nauvoo, which threatened to give them tremendous political power and the ability to affect local elections.
Robert S. Wicks and Fred R. Foister observed:
With ten to twelve thousand inhabitants in 1843, Nauvoo was the second largest city in Illinois, rivaled only by Chicago. The Holy City, as it was often called, dominated the economy of the region (Junius & Joseph, p. 22).
Also during the early 1840's Smith had secretly introduced a number of new doctrines and practices. Besides introducing plural marriage, he secretly instituted the Council of Fifty, a secret governing body, which was a forerunner of his plan to set up a theocracy, the literal Kingdom of God on Earth.
When Smith set up the Nauvoo Legion, with himself elevated to "Lieutenant General," the non-Mormon community became fearful of the militant stance of the Mormons. On July 21, 1841, the Warsaw Signal reported:
How military these people are becoming! Everything they say or do seems to breathe the spirit of military tactics. Their prophet appears, on all occasions, in his sp[l]endid regimental dress signs his name Lieut. General, and more titles are to be found in the Nauvoo Legion, than any one book on military tactics can produce; . . . Truly fighting must be a part of the creed of these Saints! (Warsaw Signal, July 21, 1841).
D. Michael Quinn observed that
the Nauvoo Legion was no ordinary militia. By 1842 the legion had 2,000 troops, by far the largest single militia in Illinois. Within two years, the Nauvoo Legion had nearly 3,000 soldiers. By comparison the U.S. army had less than 8,500 soldiers that year (The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p. 106).
Besides this, the Mormons tended to vote as a block. Thomas Ford, Governor of Illinois from 1842-1846, made these observations:
But the great cause of popular fury was, that the Mormons at several preceding elections had cast their vote as a unit, thereby making the fact apparent that no one could aspire to the honors or offices of the country, within the sphere of their influence, without their approbation and votes. . . .
This one principle and practice of theirs arrayed against them in deadly hostility all aspirants for office who were not sure of their support, all who have been unsuccessful in elections, and all who were too proud to court their influence, with all their friends and connections (History of Illinois, by Thomas Ford, 1854, pp. 329-330).
Furthermore, Smith had decided to run for President of the United States. Governor Ford commented:
To crown the whole folly of the Mormons, in the spring of 1844, Joe Smith announced himself as a candidate for president of the United States. His followers were confident that he would be elected. Two or three thousand missionaries were immediately sent out to preach their religion, and to electioneer in favor of their prophet for the presidency. This folly at once covered that people with ridicule in the minds of all sensible men, and brought them into conflict with the zealots and bigots of all political parties; as the arrogance and extravagance of their religious pretensions had already aroused the opposition of all other denominations in religion (History of Illinois, p. 321).
Robert S. Wicks and Fred R. Foister give the following assessment of Smith's bid for the presidency:
For the thirty-eight-year-old prophet Joseph, the American presidency was only the beginning. His publicly stated motivation for seeking the presidential chair was to facilitate compensating the Saints for their losses—of life, land, and property—during years of persecution in Missouri and their subsequent expulsion from the state. His private vision (initially made known only to a select inner circle of confidants) was even more ambitious. He prophesied the demise of the United States government within his own lifetime and proclaimed that his political Kingdom of God would ultimately overthrow all earthly regimes in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Smith's dual political agendas were managed by a secret Council of Fifty, organized as the nucleus of a new world government. . . . To Joseph's opponents, the prospect of merging church and state in America meant a frightening, and unacceptable, repudiation of a cornerstone of the constitution (Junius & Joseph, p. 1).
Since the community was already upset because the Mormons had a militia and voted as a block, when Smith entered the political arena it just added to people's apprehension.
________________________
Racism in Early Mormonism
Joseph Smith seems to have accepted the prevalent view of his day that darker skinned people were not as favored by God as white skinned people. This attitude is reflected in the Book of Mormon, which tells the story of a group of Israelites who fled Jerusalem about 600 BC and came to America. They soon divided into two groups, the righteous Nephites, who were "white", and the wicked Lamanites, who were cursed with "a skin of blackness" (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 5:21). The story claims that when Lamanites converted to Christianity "their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites" (3 Nephi 2:14-16). The Introduction to the current Book of Mormon maintains that the Lamanites "are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."
Even though early Mormonism reflected many of the same racial attitudes of the larger community, they did not restrict church participation on the basis of race. Viewing the Native Americans as descendents of the Book of Mormon people, Joseph Smith referred to them as "Lamanites." In 1830 he inaugurated a mission to the Indians in Missouri (see Doctrine and Covenants 32:2).
Armand Mauss commented:
In assessing the significance of Mormon relationships with the Indians during the lifetime of Joseph Smith, one must concede the part that these relationships played in inciting the hostility of other Americans against the Mormons, especially in Missouri. . . . Prophecies in the unique Mormon scriptures, as well as some Mormon commentary on those prophecies, seemed to justify such suspicions. When the Book of Mormon has Christ promising that the "remnant of Jacob" (i.e., Indians) shall go among the unrepentant Gentiles "as a young lion among the flocks of sheep" (3 Nephi 21:12-13), it would make the Gentiles wonder. Nor would they likely be reassured by public proclamations warning the unrepentant Gentiles that God is about to sweep them off the land because of the "cries of the red men, whom ye and your fathers have dispossessed and driven from their lands" . . . As part of an emerging separate ethnic identity, the Mormons began to define their destined homeland as extending from Wisconsin down to Texas and from Missouri across to the Rockies and even beyond, with the Indians as partners in building Zion throughout that entire region (All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage, by Armand L. Mauss, p. 55, University of Illinois Press, 2003).
Soon after publishing the Book of Mormon in 1830 Joseph Smith began working on the Book of Moses (printed in the Pearl of Great Price) which reflected the same community concept that blacks descended from Cain (see Moses 7:8, 12, 22). Even though the Mormons at that time accepted the common idea that blacks were from the cursed lineage of Cain they did not view this as restricting their church participation. A few blacks were baptized and at least two were ordained to the priesthood.
When Mormons started settling in Missouri in the early 1830's their attitude toward Native Americans and blacks became a concern of their neighbors. Many Missourians worried that Smith's church, founded in New York, was anti-slavery (see Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 12).
To appease their slave-holding neighbors, on July 16, 1833, the Mormons published an article in their newspaper stating:
". . . our intention was not only to stop free people of color from emigrating to this state, but to prevent them from being admitted as members of the Church" (Evening and the Morning Star, July 16, 1833).
Writing in 1836 Joseph Smith stated:
I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall. . . . It is my privilege then to name certain passages of the Bible . . . "And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren . . ." (Gen. IX:25) . . . I can say, the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come . . . (History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 438).
Oddly, right at the time Smith seems to have been developing his racial doctrines he allowed the ordination of a black named Elijah Abel. Even though Elijah Abel was allowed to retain his priesthood and go on a mission after the Mormons came to Utah, he was not allowed to participate in the temple endowments (see Dialogue, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 28-29).
In 1842 Joseph Smith published his Book of Abraham, which is part of the Pearl of Great Price, in the church-owned Times and Seasons. This new work reflected Smith's growing racist attitude towards blacks and priesthood:
Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, . . . From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham 1:21-22).
Further on in the same chapter we read that Pharaoh, being a descendent of Ham, could not have the priesthood:
Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood . . . (Book of Abraham 1:27).
LDS author Stephen Taggert observed:
With the publication of The Book of Abraham all of the elements for the Church's policy of denying the priesthood to Negroes were present. The curse of Canaan motif borrowed from Southern fundamentalism was being supported with the Church by a foundation of proslavery statements and attitudes which had emerged during the years of crisis in Missouri. . . . (Mormonism's Negro Policy: Social and Historical Origins, by Stephen G. Taggart, pp. 62-63, University of Utah Press, 1970).
Doctrine of Pre-Existence
During this time Joseph Smith started formulating his doctrine of man's pre-earth life. Preaching in 1844, Joseph Smith taught:
The mind of man is as immortal as God himself . . . God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all (History of the Church, vol. 6, pp. 310-311).
The Book of Abraham explains that those who were "noble" in their pre-earth life [man's first estate] were to be the "rulers" on earth [man's second estate] (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham 3:22-23). This led to an interpretation that everyone's birth on earth is a direct result of his/her worthiness in a prior life in heaven. Thus those less valiant were born black while the righteous were born white, with the most worthy being born into Mormon families. In 1845 LDS Apostle Orson Hyde explained that blacks were inferior spirits in the pre-earth state:
At the time the devil was cast out of heaven, there were some spirits that did not know who had authority, whether God or the devil. They consequently did not take a very active part on either side, but rather thought the devil had been abused, . . . These spirits were not considered bad enough to be cast down to hell, and never have bodies; neither were they considered worthy of an honourable body on this earth: . . . But those spirits in heaven that rather lent an influence to the devil, thinking he had a little the best right to govern, but did not take a very active part any way were required to come into the world and take bodies in the accursed lineage of Canaan; and hence the Negro or African race (Speech of Elder Orson Hyde, delivered before the High Priests' Quorum, in Nauvoo, April 27, 1845, printed by John Taylor, p. 30).
The BOM, not racist....as my post proves. I have made this argument in several forums and no one has been able to answer my question about the mark in the forehead. The text explicitly states the skins were girdles about their loins. There is not one mention of black or white epidermis and until someone answers my question or can disprove me using the BOm(which cannot be done, I've scrutinized every verse in relation to this subject) I will remain convinced that the bOm says absolutely nothing about actual epidermis color (race).
I am sure you will remain convinced of the technicalities in your mind. You just have to ignore how the whole history of ‘faithful mormon’s played out the last 100 years that’s all.
Michael Marquardt, a young Mormon scholar who became very disturbed with the Church's policy of suppressing important records, became interested in this revelation. He began to do research and found that some Mormon scholars had copies of the 1831 revelation, but they had promised not to make any copies. Finally. Mr. Marquardt learned what appears to be the real reason why the revelation has been suppressed. This is that the revelation commanded the Mormons to marry the Indians to make them a "white" and "delightsome" people.
Now, to a Christian who is familiar with the teachings of the Bible, the color of a man's skin makes no difference. In Mormon theology, however, a dark skin is a sign of God's displeasure. In the Mormon publication Juvenile Instructor we read:
We will first inquire into the results of the approbation or displeasure of God upon a people, starting with the belief that a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind. . . . when God made man in his own image and pronounced him very good, . . . he made him white. We have no record of any of God's favored servants being of a black race. (Juvenile Instructor, v. 3, page 157)
The teaching that a dark skin is the result of God's displeasure comes directly out of Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon teaches that about 600 B.C. a prophet named Lehi brought his family to America. Those who were righteous (the Nephites) had a white skin, but those who rebelled against God (the Lamanites) were cursed with a dark skin. The Lamanites eventually destroyed the Nephites; therefore, the Indians living today are referred to as Lamanites. The following verses from the Book of Mormon explain the curse on the Lamanites:
And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations. (Book of Mormon, I Nephi 12:23)
And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity . . . wherefore, as they were white, and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might no be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. . . .
And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. (2 Nephi 5:21 and 23)
The Book of Mormon states that when the Lamanites repented of their sins they became white like the Nephites: "And their curse was taken from them and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;" (3 Nephi 2:15)
The Book of Mormon also promised that in the last days the Lamanites—i.e., the Indians—would repent and become a "white and delightsome people":
And the gospel of Jesus Christ shall be declared among them; . . . and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people. (2 Nephi 30:5-6)
These teachings have caused the Mormon Church some embarrassment. Anti-Mormon writers have claimed that the Indians who have become converted to the Church have not become "white" as the Book of Mormon predicts. Spencer W. Kimball, who recently became the twelfth President of the Mormon Church, does not feel that this criticism is justified. He feels that the Indians are actually becoming a "white and delightsome people." In the LDS General Conference, held in October 1960, Spencer W. Kimball stated:
I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today as against that of only fifteen years ago. Truly the scales of darkness are falling from their eyes, and they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people. . . .
The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.
At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated. (Improvement Era, Dec.1960, pp. 922-923)
While Spencer W. Kimball seems to feel that the Indians are to be made white by the power of God, Michael Marquardt learned that Joseph Smith's 1831 revelation says they are to be made white through intermarriage with the Mormons. Because of this fact, the Mormon leaders seemed to feel that it was necessary to keep the revelation from their people. Only the most trusted men, such as Dr. Hyrum Andrus, were allowed a copy of it. It was only after a great deal of research that Mr. Marquardt was able to obtain a typed copy of the revelation. In our new book Mormonism Like Watergate? we reproduce this revelation in its entirety, but in this study we only have room for the most important portions:
Part Substance
of a revelation by Joseph Smith Jr., given over the boundary, west of Jackson County, Missouri, on Sunday morning, July 17, 1831, when seven Elders: viz., Joseph Smith Jr., Oliver Cowdery, W. W. Phelps, Martin Harris, Joseph Coe, Ziba Peterson, and Joshua Lewis united their hearts in prayer, in a private place, to inquire of the Lord who should preach the first sermon to the remnant of the Lamanites and Nephites and the people of that section, that should assemble that day in the Indian country, to hear the Gospel and the revelations according to the Book of Mormon.
Among the company, there being neither pen, ink nor paper, Joseph remarked that the Lord could preserve his words, as he had ever done, till the time appointed, and proceeded:
1 Verily, Verily, saith the Lord, your Redeemer, even Jesus Christ, the light and the life of the world, . . .
4 Verily, I say unto you, that the wisdom of man, in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my holy priesthood, but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles. . . .
7 Be patient, therefore, possessing your souls in peace and love, . . . even so. Amen.
Reported by W.W.P.
About three years after this was given, I asked brother Joseph, privately, how "we" that were mentioned in the revelation could take wives from the "natives" as we were all married men? He replied, instantly "In the same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Kenturah; and Jacob took Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah; by revelation—the saints of the Lord are always directed by revelation.'
The letters "W.W.P." stand for William Wine Phelps, who served as a scribe for the Mormon leaders.
According to what Mr. Marquardt could learn, the original revelation is preserved in a vault in the LDS Church Historical Department. The paper on which it is written has the appearance of being very old.
There is a second copy of the revelation in the Historical Department. This appears in a letter from W. W. Phelps to Brigham Young. The letter is dated August 12, 1861. Michael Marquardt has been able to obtain a copy of this letter, and we have reproduced it in its entirety in our booklet Mormonism Like Watergate? Except for the opening and closing lines, this letter is almost identical to the other document.
In this new book Doctrines of the Kingdom, Dr. Hyrum L. Andrus of Brigham Young University, actually quotes part of this revelation as it appears in the letter, but he is very careful to suppress the fact that the wives to be taken were Lamanites:
The Prophet understood the principle of plural marriage as early as 1831. William W. Phelps stated that on Sunday morning, July 17, 1831, he and others were with Joseph Smith over the border west of Jackson County, Missouri, when the latter-day Seer received a revelation, the substance of which said in part: "Verily I say unto you, that the wisdom of man in his fallen state knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my Holy Priesthood, but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness." According to Elder Phelps, the revelation then indicated that in due time the brethren would be required to take plural wives. (Doctrines of the Kingdom, Salt Lake City, 1973, page 450)
In footnote 37 on the same page, Dr. Andrus gives his source for this information as "Letter of William W. Phelps to Brigham Young, August 12, 1861. Church Historian's Library, Salt Lake City, Utah." (Ibid., page 450)
The reader will notice that in his quotation from the revelation, Dr. Andrus suppressed the important portion concerning the Indians. His quotation ended with ". . . ye shall know when ye receive a fulness." The revelation itself, and the copy in Phelps' letter, goes on to mention the Lamanites. We quote the following from the letter:
. . . ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just for even now their females are most [more?] virtuous than the gentiles.
The reader will note that except for the word "most," our copy of Phelps' letter agrees with the copy of the revelation which we have previously cited. Both these copies contain the words that Dr. Andrus has suppressed.
Since we are unable to examine the original revelation, it is very difficult to determine when it was actually recorded. From W. W. Phelps' letter to Brigham Young we know that the revelation had to have been recorded by 1861. As we understand it, the first document—containing only the revelation and Phelps' comment—appears to be older than the letter dated August 12, 1861. It is possible that it could have been recorded any time between 1831 and 1861. If the revelation and the note at the bottom were written at the same time, then obviously the revelation could not have been written until some time after 1834. It could be, however that the note was added at a later time. It will not be possible to decide this vital question unless the Mormon leaders allow scholars to closely examine the document itself or allow photographs of it to be printed.
Regardless of when the revelation was actually written down on paper, however, we have found definite historical proof that it was given in 1831. The proof is derived from a letter written by Ezra Booth and published in the Ohio Star only five months after the revelation was given! In this letter Ezra Booth stated:
In addition to this, and to co-operate with it, it has been made known by revelation, that it will be pleasing to the Lord, should they form a matrimonial alliance with the Natives; and by this means the Elders, who comply with the things so pleasing to the Lord, and for which the Lord has promised to bless those who do it abundantly, gain a residence in the Indian territory, independent of the agent. It has been made known to one, who has left his wife in the state of N.Y. that he is entirely free from his wife, and he is at liberty to take him a wife from among the Lamanites. It was easily perceived that this permission, was perfectly suited to his desires. I have frequently heard him state, that the Lord had made it known to him, that he is as free from his wife as from any other woman; and the only crime that I have ever heard alleged against her is, she is violently opposed to Mormonism. But before this contemplated marriage can be carried into effect, he must return to the state of N.Y. and settle his business, for fear, should he return, after that affair had taken place, the civil authority would apprehend him as a criminal. (Ohio Star, Dec. 8, 1831)
We had originally discovered Booth's statement in an 1834 reprint of his letters, but Michael Marquardt found a microfilm copy of the original paper in the Mormon Church's Genealogical Library in Salt Lake City.
Since Ezra Booth did go to Missouri and was well acquainted with the Elders, his letter furnishes irrefutable proof that Joseph Smith gave the revelation commanding the Mormons to marry Lamanite women.
Like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, the second President of the Mormon Church, taught that "the curse will be removed" from off the Indians and "they will become 'a white and delightsome people.' " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, page 143)
While Brigham Young suppressed the 1831 revelation, there is evidence that he was familiar with its teaching that the Indians should be made white through intermarriage. William Hall said that just after the Mormons left Nauvoo, Brigham Young gave a speech which "was in substance as follows":
"We are now going to the Lamanites, to whom we intend to be messengers of instruction. . . . We will show them that in consequence of their transgressions a curse has been inflicted upon them—in the darkness of their skins. We will have intermarriages with them, they marrying our young women, and we taking their young squaws to wife. By these means it is the will of the Lord that the curse of their color shall be removed and they restored to their pristine beauty. . ." (The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed, Cincinnati, 1852, page 59)
Juanita Brooks gives the following information concerning the Salmon River Mission:
Very early, some of the Mormon leaders recommended that the missionaries marry Indian women as a means of cementing the friendship between the races. . . .
The Elders who were sent to the Salmon River Mission were given similar instructions by Brigham Young and his party, who visited them in May, 1857. At least three different missionaries tell of them, . . . Milton G. Hammond says simply, "The president and members of the Twelve all spoke. Pres. Young spoke to Elders marrying natives." William H. Dame . . . wrote in his journal: "Meeting was held . . . Young men might take squaws to wife. . . ." The mission clerk, David Moore, gave a somewhat more detailed account:
"Sunday, May 10, [1857] . . . Pres. H. C. Kimball & Wells addressed Missionaries . . . on the importance of the Missionaries being faithful . . . and for them to marry the Native women. . . . Pres. B. Young said, . . . when the Lord opened they [sic] way before them so that they Could Marry Girls they would be very likely to be enabled to keep them. . . ."
As a result of these teachings, at least three of the brethren married Indian women. . . . As to the Indian women whom they had taken as wives the "L.D.S. Journal History" of April 9, 1858, records: "Two squaws who had married the brethren refused to come, fearing the soldiers would kill all the Mormons." (Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 12, pp. 28-30)
T. B. H. Stenhouse gives the following information concerning the Salmon River Mission:
Before any of the married brethren could make love to a maiden with the view of making her a second, third, or tenth wife, he was expected to go and obtain Brigham's permission, . . . He sent at one time a mission to Fort Limhi, Salmon River, to civilize the Indians. The brethren were counselled not to take their families with them, but they were to live with the Indians, to educate and civilize them, and to teach them various trades and farming. When Brigham and Heber afterwards visited the missionaries to see how they were succeeding, Heber, in his quaint way, told them that he did not see how the modern predictions could well be fulfilled about the Indians becoming "a white and delightsome people" without extending polygamy to the natives. The approach of the United States army, in 1857, contributed to break up that mission, but not before Heber's hint had been clearly understood, and the prophecy half fulfilled! Heber was very practical, and believed that the people should never ask "the Lord" to do for them what they could do themselves, and, as all "Israel" had long prayed that the Indians might speedily become a "white and delightsome people," he thought it was the duty of the missionaries to assist "the Lord" in fulfilling his promises. This was not the first time that a Mormon prophet attempted to aid in bringing to pass the prophecies of "the Lord." More than one missionary appears to have thoroughly understood him! (The Rocky Mountain Saints, pp. 657-659)
In a footnote on page 659 of the same book, Mr. Stenhouse stated:
One young man replied to Brother Heber that it was the teaching of the Church that the elders should always follow their "file-leaders," and that "if President Young and he should each take a squaw to wife and thus set the example, they would certainly follow suit." That ended the "bleaching" of the "Lamanites."
William Hall claimed that Brigham Young was married "to two young squaws," but so far we have been unable to find any documentation for this statement. According to John D. Lee , on May 12, 1849, Brigham Young said that he did not want to take the Indians "in his arms until the curse is removed from of[f] them. . . . But we will take their children & s[c]hool them & teach them to be clenly & to love morality & then raise up seed amoung them & in this way they will be brought back into the presance & knowledge of God. . . ." (A Mormon Chronicle, The Diaries of John D. Lee, vol. 1, page 108)
It would appear, then, that Brigham Young would not follow Joseph Smith's revelation to take "wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just, . . ." Even though the revelation said that "their females are more virtuous than the gentiles," Brigham Young built up his "kingdom" with women who were already "white and delightsome."
If Brigham Young did not follow the 1831 revelation to marry the Lamanites, we must remember that he was only following the example of Joseph Smith, for Smith also married "white" women. Though Young suppressed Smith's 1831 revelation and chose "white" women in preference to the Lamanites, he did at least encourage others to marry them "that the curse of their color shall be removed and they restored to their pristine beauty."
After Brigham Young's death the idea that the Indians should be made "white and delightsome" through intermarriage began to fall into disrepute. The Mormon leaders have tended to frown upon interracial marriage with the Indians, even though there is no written rule against the practice.
The Mormon Apostle Mark E. Petersen made these comments in an address delivered at Brigham Young University:
What should be our attitude as Latter-day Saints toward negro and other dark race? . . . We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in our pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Indians, some as Negroes, some as Americans, some as Latter-day Saints. These are rewards and punishments, . . .
Now let's talk segregation again for a few moments. . . . When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, . . . He engaged in an act of segregation. . . . In placing a curse on Laman and Lemuel, He engaged in segregation. . . .
The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negroes we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that He places a dark skin upon them as a curse—as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. (2 Nephi 5:21) . . .
What is our advice with respect to intermarriage with Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiians and so on? I will tell you what advice I give personally. If a boy or girl comes to me claiming to be in love with a Chinese or Japanese or a Hawaiian or a person of any other dark race, I do my best to talk them out of it. I tell them that I think the Hawaiians should marry Hawaiians, the Japanese ought to marry Japanese, and the Chinese ought to marry Chinese, and the Caucasians should marry Caucasians, . . . I teach against inter-marriage of all kinds. (Race Problems—As They Affect The Church, Address by Mark E. Petersen, Brigham Young University, August 27, 1954)
Mark E. Petersen is second in line to become President of the Mormon Church. The Apostle Petersen and other Mormon leaders who are opposed to intermarriage will probably be very embarrassed now that the 1831 revelation has come to light. The fact that they have suppressed this revelation plainly shows that they do not really believe that it came from God. They have been involved in a cover-up to protect the image of Joseph Smith.
LDS - "You see some classes of the human family that are BLACK, UNCOUTH, UNCOMELY, DISAGREEABLE and LOW in their habits, WILD, and seemingly DEPRIVED OF NEARLY ALL THE BLESSINGS OF THE INTELLIGENCE that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been KILLED, and THAT WOULD HAVE PUT A TERMINATION TO THAT LINE OF HUMAN BEINGS. This was not to be, and the Lord put A MARK upon him, which is THE FLAT NOSE AND BLACK SKIN. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race -- that they should be the "servants of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree." LDS "Prophet" Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290, 1859, emphasis added.
_______________________________________
Changes, why so many changes?
Unannotated Changes
Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book in the world, and that a man could get closer to God by reading it than any other book.64 The Mormon Church has had a policy of not annotating its changes in the Book of Mormon, thus its people are not generally aware that it has been changing the Book of Mormon. In fact, LDS leaders still use this quotation to impress its members with the book's accuracy.65
A look at the original 1830 edition will quickly disillusion anyone who believes this. As one critic put it, "the Book of Mormon, so far as examined, lets us down to the level of an ignorant, unlettered, unsophisticated youth."66
While the doctrinal and archaeological errors remain in their totality in present editions, literally hundreds of grammatical errors and misuses of the English language which appear in the original 1830 edition have been edited out.
Examples are: "as I was a journeying" (249; Alma 10:7; 8:10); "Lamanitish servants a going forth" (271; Alma 17:26; 12:38), "a preaching" (284; Alma 21:11; 13:15), "a begging" (309; Alma 30:56; 6:72), etc.67
This has resulted in the publication of another book by the Utah Lighthouse Mission which compares the original 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon with the 1964 LDS edition, noting all the changes.
It is appropriately named 3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon. Now, however, the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon has made it obsolete, for it has over two hundred additional changes.
An example of how the editing still does not go far enough may be found in Helaman 7:8, 9; 3:8-9. The 1830 edition reads, "Yea, if my days could have been in them days, then would my soul have had joy in the righteousness of my brethren. But behold, I am consigned that these are my days . . . (p. 427)." The Mormon editors caught the first error and changed "them" to "these," but left "consigned," which should have been changed to "resigned."
When confronted by the fact that their own leaders have been editing the Book of Mormon, Mormons generally try to excuse them by saying that the changes are only superficial. Some of these changes go far beyond grammar. For example, the 1830 Book of Mormon tells of translating by King Benjamin which subsequent editions changed from King Benjamin to King Mosiah (200; Mosiah 21:28; 9:170). Why this change? Because closer examination of the text shows that King Benjamin had died by then and Mosiah was king.68
Mormons also defend editing by their church leaders on the grounds that they are led by the Holy Spirit in whatever corrections they may make.69 However, upon close examination of the changes, it becomes obvious that some of the editing is worse than the original text.
An example of this in the 1830 edition is found on page 87; (2 Ne. 12:8-9; 8:24-25). This is a passage of Isaiah and corresponds to Is. 2:8-9 in the Bible. The primary change in this verse is the addition of the word "not" in verse 9; 25. The 1830 edition added it once, causing confusion. Subsequent editing, apparently by Joseph Smith himself, added another "not" which compounded the confusion. The result is that this passage, which in Isaiah condemns idolatry, becomes, in the Book of Mormon, a command to commit idolatry:70
Their land is also full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made. And the mean man boweth not down, and the great man humbleth himself not, therefore, forgive him not.
Samples of other glaring errors which need to be edited are:71
Helaman 9:6; 3:73'Now, immediately when the judge had been murdered'he being stabbed by his brother by a garb of secrecy, and he fled...
Alma 43:38; 20:41'While on the other hand, there was now and then a man fell among the Nephites, by their swords and the loss of blood, they being shielded from the more vital parts of the body, or the more vital parts of the body being shielded from the strokes of the Lamanites, by their breastplates...
Mormon General Authority B. H. Roberts wrote wearily about his frustration with Book of Mormon errors:72
Many errors, verbal and grammatical, have already been eliminated in the later English editions, and there is no valid reason why every one of those that remain should not be eliminated...There is just no good reason why we should not have just as good a Book of Mormon in the English language as they now have in the French, the German, the Swedish and the Danish.. The present writer hopes that he will live to see those verbal and grammatical changes authorized.
Despite Joseph Smith's declaration that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book, the Book of Mormon actually apologizes for being poorly written, yet practically in the same sentence, brazenly condemns all who refuse to believe it:
...when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words. And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn.(Ether 12:25-26; 5:26-27)
1 Jerald and Sandra Tanner, MORMONISM: SHADOW OR REALITY? (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1982), 72.
2M. T. Lamb, THE GOLDEN BIBLE OR "THE BOOK OF MORMON." IS IT FROM GOD? (1887; photomechanical reprint, Salt Lake: Utah Lighthouse Ministry) 1-4.
65 Tanner, 3.913 g, Intro., 1.
66 Lamb, 59.
67 LaMar Petersen, PROBLEMS IN THE MORMON TEXT (Concord, CA: Pacific Publishing, n.d.), 13.
68 Tanner, 3,913 CHANGES, Intro., 5.
69 ibid.
70 Ed Decker, SAINTS ALIVE IN JESUS NEWSLETTER. (Issaquah, WA: Ex-Mormons for Jesus, June 1985), n.p.
71 Lamb, 56.
72 Tanner, 3,913 CHANGES, Intro., 5.
LDS - "You see some classes of the human family that are BLACK, UNCOUTH, UNCOMELY, DISAGREEABLE and LOW in their habits, WILD, and seemingly DEPRIVED OF NEARLY ALL THE BLESSINGS OF THE INTELLIGENCE that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been KILLED, and THAT WOULD HAVE PUT A TERMINATION TO THAT LINE OF HUMAN BEINGS. This was not to be, and the Lord put A MARK upon him, which is THE FLAT NOSE AND BLACK SKIN. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race -- that they should be the "servants of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree." LDS "Prophet" Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290, 1859, emphasis added.
_______________________________________
Changes, why so many changes?
Unannotated Changes
Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book in the world, and that a man could get closer to God by reading it than any other book.64 The Mormon Church has had a policy of not annotating its changes in the Book of Mormon, thus its people are not generally aware that it has been changing the Book of Mormon. In fact, LDS leaders still use this quotation to impress its members with the book's accuracy.65
A look at the original 1830 edition will quickly disillusion anyone who believes this. As one critic put it, "the Book of Mormon, so far as examined, lets us down to the level of an ignorant, unlettered, unsophisticated youth."66
While the doctrinal and archaeological errors remain in their totality in present editions, literally hundreds of grammatical errors and misuses of the English language which appear in the original 1830 edition have been edited out.
Examples are: "as I was a journeying" (249; Alma 10:7; 8:10); "Lamanitish servants a going forth" (271; Alma 17:26; 12:38), "a preaching" (284; Alma 21:11; 13:15), "a begging" (309; Alma 30:56; 6:72), etc.67
This has resulted in the publication of another book by the Utah Lighthouse Mission which compares the original 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon with the 1964 LDS edition, noting all the changes.
It is appropriately named 3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon. Now, however, the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon has made it obsolete, for it has over two hundred additional changes.
An example of how the editing still does not go far enough may be found in Helaman 7:8, 9; 3:8-9. The 1830 edition reads, "Yea, if my days could have been in them days, then would my soul have had joy in the righteousness of my brethren. But behold, I am consigned that these are my days . . . (p. 427)." The Mormon editors caught the first error and changed "them" to "these," but left "consigned," which should have been changed to "resigned."
When confronted by the fact that their own leaders have been editing the Book of Mormon, Mormons generally try to excuse them by saying that the changes are only superficial. Some of these changes go far beyond grammar. For example, the 1830 Book of Mormon tells of translating by King Benjamin which subsequent editions changed from King Benjamin to King Mosiah (200; Mosiah 21:28; 9:170). Why this change? Because closer examination of the text shows that King Benjamin had died by then and Mosiah was king.68
Mormons also defend editing by their church leaders on the grounds that they are led by the Holy Spirit in whatever corrections they may make.69 However, upon close examination of the changes, it becomes obvious that some of the editing is worse than the original text.
An example of this in the 1830 edition is found on page 87; (2 Ne. 12:8-9; 8:24-25). This is a passage of Isaiah and corresponds to Is. 2:8-9 in the Bible. The primary change in this verse is the addition of the word "not" in verse 9; 25. The 1830 edition added it once, causing confusion. Subsequent editing, apparently by Joseph Smith himself, added another "not" which compounded the confusion. The result is that this passage, which in Isaiah condemns idolatry, becomes, in the Book of Mormon, a command to commit idolatry:70
Their land is also full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made. And the mean man boweth not down, and the great man humbleth himself not, therefore, forgive him not.
Samples of other glaring errors which need to be edited are:71
Helaman 9:6; 3:73'Now, immediately when the judge had been murdered'he being stabbed by his brother by a garb of secrecy, and he fled...
Alma 43:38; 20:41'While on the other hand, there was now and then a man fell among the Nephites, by their swords and the loss of blood, they being shielded from the more vital parts of the body, or the more vital parts of the body being shielded from the strokes of the Lamanites, by their breastplates...
Mormon General Authority B. H. Roberts wrote wearily about his frustration with Book of Mormon errors:72
Many errors, verbal and grammatical, have already been eliminated in the later English editions, and there is no valid reason why every one of those that remain should not be eliminated...There is just no good reason why we should not have just as good a Book of Mormon in the English language as they now have in the French, the German, the Swedish and the Danish.. The present writer hopes that he will live to see those verbal and grammatical changes authorized.
Despite Joseph Smith's declaration that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book, the Book of Mormon actually apologizes for being poorly written, yet practically in the same sentence, brazenly condemns all who refuse to believe it:
...when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words. And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn.(Ether 12:25-26; 5:26-27)
1 Jerald and Sandra Tanner, MORMONISM: SHADOW OR REALITY? (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1982), 72.
2M. T. Lamb, THE GOLDEN BIBLE OR "THE BOOK OF MORMON." IS IT FROM GOD? (1887; photomechanical reprint, Salt Lake: Utah Lighthouse Ministry) 1-4.
65 Tanner, 3.913 g, Intro., 1.
66 Lamb, 59.
67 LaMar Petersen, PROBLEMS IN THE MORMON TEXT (Concord, CA: Pacific Publishing, n.d.), 13.
68 Tanner, 3,913 CHANGES, Intro., 5.
69 ibid.
70 Ed Decker, SAINTS ALIVE IN JESUS NEWSLETTER. (Issaquah, WA: Ex-Mormons for Jesus, June 1985), n.p.
71 Lamb, 56.
72 Tanner, 3,913 CHANGES, Intro., 5.
Thats bc JS understood it was symbology and probably so did the people who changed it back. JS did it bc I think too many people were reading the race thing into it and he did not agree or like that. Later people thought "it is just a synonym, people will have to grow up and realize that the jews along with dozens of other cultures use the terms black and white as symbols for purity and filthiness" so they changed it back. Now, imagine your JS and you faked the bOm, would you go through the trouble of conceiving a plot line of blacks against whites, writing that entire book out, publishing said book, and just a couple of years later say....Well, I can change all the work and my entire premise by changing one word in two verses?
Since we are unable to examine the original revelation about marrying the native americans to make them white, it is very difficult to determine when it was actually recorded. From W. W. Phelps' letter to Brigham Young we know that the revelation had to have been recorded by 1861. As we understand it, the first document—containing only the revelation and Phelps' comment—appears to be older than the letter dated August 12, 1861. It is possible that it could have been recorded any time between 1831 and 1861. If the revelation and the note at the bottom were written at the same time, then obviously the revelation could not have been written until some time after 1834. It could be, however that the note was added at a later time. It will not be possible to decide this vital question unless the Mormon leaders allow scholars to closely examine the document itself or allow photographs of it to be printed.
Regardless of when the revelation was actually written down on paper, however, we have found definite historical proof that it was given in 1831. The proof is derived from a letter written by Ezra Booth and published in the Ohio Star only five months after the revelation was given! In this letter Ezra Booth stated:
In addition to this, and to co-operate with it, it has been made known by revelation, that it will be pleasing to the Lord, should they form a matrimonial alliance with the Natives; and by this means the Elders, who comply with the things so pleasing to the Lord, and for which the Lord has promised to bless those who do it abundantly, gain a residence in the Indian territory, independent of the agent. It has been made known to one, who has left his wife in the state of N.Y. that he is entirely free from his wife, and he is at liberty to take him a wife from among the Lamanites. It was easily perceived that this permission, was perfectly suited to his desires. I have frequently heard him state, that the Lord had made it known to him, that he is as free from his wife as from any other woman; and the only crime that I have ever heard alleged against her is, she is violently opposed to Mormonism. But before this contemplated marriage can be carried into effect, he must return to the state of N.Y. and settle his business, for fear, should he return, after that affair had taken place, the civil authority would apprehend him as a criminal. (Ohio Star, Dec. 8, 1831)
We had originally discovered Booth's statement in an 1834 reprint of his letters, but Michael Marquardt found a microfilm copy of the original paper in the Mormon Church's Genealogical Library in Salt Lake City.
Since Ezra Booth did go to Missouri and was well acquainted with the Elders, his letter furnishes irrefutable proof that Joseph Smith gave the revelation commanding the Mormons to marry Lamanite women.
The BOM may have some of the same words at Whitman’s ‘Leaves of Grass’ because Whitman likewise wrote in English and used objects commonly occurring in life. That about all there is to it. As a poem, there is no plot and it doesn’t claim to be a historical record. You are missing the implications of the obvious.
The ideas of the BOM of Mormon were simply not original in 1830. There were a number of preexisting sources for these ideas available in the area from men who penned their work before JS ever wrote the BOM with the help of Cowdry.
Spaulding’s work was an abridged ‘history’ of extinct inhabitants of ancient America with a very similar outline as the BOM. Ethan’s Smith’s “View of the Hebrew”s and the Book of Mormon had some rather startling similarities. Not only was there a familial link between the two (Poultney was but a few miles from the birthplace of Joseph Smith, and one of Smith's right-hand-men, Oliver Cowdery, attended Ethan Smith's church), but the subject matter of the two works had a number of points of contact. Then there is Josiah Priest's The Wonders of Nature and Providence, Displayed (1825), which also includes numerous parallels to the Book of Mormon, quotes extensively from Ethan Smith's book and is known to have been available in the local Manchester Rental Library when Joseph Smith lived in the village.
The BOM may have some of the same words at Whitman’s ‘Leaves of Grass’ because Whitman likewise wrote in English and used objects commonly occurring in life. That about all there is to it. As a poem, there is no plot and it doesn’t claim to be a historical record. You are missing the implications of the obvious.
The ideas of the BOM of Mormon were simply not original in 1830. There were a number of preexisting sources for these ideas available in the area from men who penned their work before JS ever wrote the BOM with the help of Cowdry.
Spaulding’s work was an abridged ‘history’ of extinct inhabitants of ancient America with a very similar outline as the BOM. Ethan’s Smith’s “View of the Hebrew”s and the Book of Mormon had some rather startling similarities. Not only was there a familial link between the two (Poultney was but a few miles from the birthplace of Joseph Smith, and one of Smith's right-hand-men, Oliver Cowdery, attended Ethan Smith's church), but the subject matter of the two works had a number of points of contact. Then there is Josiah Priest's The Wonders of Nature and Providence, Displayed (1825), which also includes numerous parallels to the Book of Mormon, quotes extensively from Ethan Smith's book and is known to have been available in the local Manchester Rental Library when Joseph Smith lived in the village.
Are you for real with that. That sounds like some cliche about how to prosylitize to mormons. And from what I've seen in your posts so far... it seems like most of your info is from cut and paste of critics of the church websites that are about a decade old in their research.
Unfortanately, I am sorry to say its gets less credible the deeper one digs.
The best sources are from people who were LDS themselves:
exmormon.org – “We are not affiliated with any religion”
http://www.newordermormon.org/
For a little history on the failed ohio bank:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH/painerep.htm#021538
http://www.lds-mormon.com/sr.shtml
Have a great couple of weeks as well. Thanks,
warship,
Hope all is well. My apologies for the long delay, I have been loaded up at work and the weeks flown by.
Yes of course they don’t wish to advocate this theory. It is too shady/not politically correct to sell the full historical doctrines or what used to go on.
I don’t quite understand what you mean warship when you say you are not a member of the church. Will you please elaborate for me?
Are you implying any of the following:
1.) You have officially disassociated fellowship your assigned Ward as in:
Leaving the Mornom church
That doesn’t seem likely to me.
2.) You’re a RLDS, and consider the Utah LDS branch to be wayward from the true Mormon faith.
3.) You are a fundamentalist and you are upset that the other LDS groups gave up polygamy, etc.!?
Fundamentalist LDS
That doesn’t see likely either.
4.) Are just ‘pulling my leg’ in appearing to distance yourself from the LDS church due to me knowing some of the (non –PC) Mormon history.
5.) Are not active, but still listed as a member.
6.) Other, I am out of guesses & off-base so maybe you can help.
QUOTE
JS made Elijah Abel, a black man, one of the quorum of 70 and gave him full priesthood. Go to Black Mormon's Homepage and see what they have to say.
Thank you for the heads up on the Black Mormon’s Homepage, I had not seen that site before. It’s an eloquent attempt to rewrite history of race relations in the Mormon church by a carefully chosen omission of what was really taught through the years. To borrower a cliché from the LDS, they must ‘give them milk before meat’ so as not to scare people off as they have in some instances:
Yes, I was aware that Elijah Abel was ordained as a priest. He also went on a mission after the Mormons went to Utah. There may have been at least one other black ordained to the priesthood during Joseph Smith's life, but Elijah Abel was the only one mentioned by LDS historian Andrew Jenson:
Abel, Elijah, the only colored man who is known to have been ordained to the priesthood . . . was ordained an elder March 3, 1836, and a seventy April 4, 1841, an exception having been made in his case with regard to the general rule of the church in relation to colored people (L.D.S. Biographical Encyclopedia, vol. 3, p. 577, 1901-1936, Deseret News).
He was not allowed to participate in the temple endowments, however. (see Dialogue, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 28-29). Why not?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| JS made Elijah Abel, a black man, one of the quorum of 70 and gave him full priesthood. Go to Black Mormon's Homepage and see what they have to say. |
Thank you for the heads up on the Black Mormon’s Homepage, I had not seen that site before. It’s an eloquent attempt to rewrite history of race relations in the Mormon church by a carefully chosen omission of what was really taught through the years. To borrower a cliché from the LDS, they must ‘give them milk before meat’ so as not to scare people off as they have in some instances:
Yes, I was aware that Elijah Abel was ordained as a priest. He also went on a mission after the Mormons went to Utah. There may have been at least one other black ordained to the priesthood during Joseph Smith's life, but Elijah Abel was the only one mentioned by LDS historian Andrew Jenson:
Abel, Elijah, the only colored man who is known to have been ordained to the priesthood . . . was ordained an elder March 3, 1836, and a seventy April 4, 1841, an exception having been made in his case with regard to the general rule of the church in relation to colored people (L.D.S. Biographical Encyclopedia, vol. 3, p. 577, 1901-1936, Deseret News).
He was not allowed to participate in the temple endowments, however. (see Dialogue, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 28-29). Why not?
The church after JS..racist, no argument from me there. The church during JS, not racist...
Re: Post JS Mormonism, Its Better late to suddenly have a ‘new revelation’ to change the racist stance of the LDS church than never:
As far back as 1963, Donald Ira French, Jr., wrote a letter in which he remarked:
Sir: As an elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it has long seemed incredible to me that a church with so much forward vision in social welfare and higher education can be so backward in its outlook on a segment of the human race that is also supposed to be among our brothers. . . .
The revelation that the church is talking about with respect to the Negro and the priesthood should have been sought 50 years ago—not now when we are forced into looking for one. Even if a revelation should come now, we have compromised our position because it looks as if we have been forced into seeking it, which will be true. (Time, Nov. l, 1963)
Since almost every male in the Mormon Church has some sort of priesthood office, the restriction on blacks meant that they could not participate in any leadership position. In addition to this, Mormonism teaches that a person must be married in the temple in order to achieve the highest level of heaven, or eternal life. However, the priesthood ban on blacks meant that they could not have a temple marriage, thus keeping them from achieving eternal life, also referred to as exaltation. Are we to supposed that all the blacks who never had this privilege can be restored by some secret temple babtism for thed dead ceremony?
While the ban has been lifted the LDS Church has yet to clarify its theological view on race or why the ban was ever instituted in the first place.
QUOTE
JS ran for president with the platform of emancipation and equality over a decade before the abolitionists movement and Lincoln. In fact JS heavily distributed pamphlets about equality in Lincoln's home state when Lincoln would have been a teenager. Many have speculated that that very flyer might probably have made its way into the hands of old Lincoln and perhaps inspired him.
The abolitionist movement actually started in England in the 1700’s when the religious conviction of Quakers and others gripped people to oppose it. The first substantial anti-slavery petition was sent to Parliament in 1783 and in 1789 William Wilberforce gave parliament’s first speech against the slave trade but it took them many years to defeat it. The first American abolition society was formed in 1775. Ben Franklin was it’s first president when it was reorganized several years after the War of Independence. The preaching of Lyman Beecher and Nathaniel Taylor in New England and the religious revivals that began in W New York state in 1824 under Charles G. Finney swept much of the North, created a powerful impulse toward social reform—emancipation of the slaves as well as temperance and women's rights. (The historical records of revivals in western NY conflict the timing of JS’s alleged 1820 “first vision” but that is a different topic.) The abolition movement in the US began to reach crusading proportions in the 1830s. Is more likely that JS (or his spokesmen) were just citing popular Northern sentiment of the day.
________________________________________________
About JS run for president, Some former members of the LDS church compiled the following about Nauvoo, Illinois and the JS’s political ambitions:
(The tension in the state is often portrayed as)… just an extension of the seemingly senseless persecution endured by the Mormons through the years.
However, thousands of Mormons were pouring into Nauvoo, which threatened to give them tremendous political power and the ability to affect local elections.
Robert S. Wicks and Fred R. Foister observed:
With ten to twelve thousand inhabitants in 1843, Nauvoo was the second largest city in Illinois, rivaled only by Chicago. The Holy City, as it was often called, dominated the economy of the region (Junius & Joseph, p. 22).
Also during the early 1840's Smith had secretly introduced a number of new doctrines and practices. Besides introducing plural marriage, he secretly instituted the Council of Fifty, a secret governing body, which was a forerunner of his plan to set up a theocracy, the literal Kingdom of God on Earth.
When Smith set up the Nauvoo Legion, with himself elevated to "Lieutenant General," the non-Mormon community became fearful of the militant stance of the Mormons. On July 21, 1841, the Warsaw Signal reported:
How military these people are becoming! Everything they say or do seems to breathe the spirit of military tactics. Their prophet appears, on all occasions, in his sp[l]endid regimental dress signs his name Lieut. General, and more titles are to be found in the Nauvoo Legion, than any one book on military tactics can produce; . . . Truly fighting must be a part of the creed of these Saints! (Warsaw Signal, July 21, 1841).
D. Michael Quinn observed that
the Nauvoo Legion was no ordinary militia. By 1842 the legion had 2,000 troops, by far the largest single militia in Illinois. Within two years, the Nauvoo Legion had nearly 3,000 soldiers. By comparison the U.S. army had less than 8,500 soldiers that year (The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p. 106).
Besides this, the Mormons tended to vote as a block. Thomas Ford, Governor of Illinois from 1842-1846, made these observations:
But the great cause of popular fury was, that the Mormons at several preceding elections had cast their vote as a unit, thereby making the fact apparent that no one could aspire to the honors or offices of the country, within the sphere of their influence, without their approbation and votes. . . .
This one principle and practice of theirs arrayed against them in deadly hostility all aspirants for office who were not sure of their support, all who have been unsuccessful in elections, and all who were too proud to court their influence, with all their friends and connections (History of Illinois, by Thomas Ford, 1854, pp. 329-330).
Furthermore, Smith had decided to run for President of the United States. Governor Ford commented:
To crown the whole folly of the Mormons, in the spring of 1844, Joe Smith announced himself as a candidate for president of the United States. His followers were confident that he would be elected. Two or three thousand missionaries were immediately sent out to preach their religion, and to electioneer in favor of their prophet for the presidency. This folly at once covered that people with ridicule in the minds of all sensible men, and brought them into conflict with the zealots and bigots of all political parties; as the arrogance and extravagance of their religious pretensions had already aroused the opposition of all other denominations in religion (History of Illinois, p. 321).
Robert S. Wicks and Fred R. Foister give the following assessment of Smith's bid for the presidency:
For the thirty-eight-year-old prophet Joseph, the American presidency was only the beginning. His publicly stated motivation for seeking the presidential chair was to facilitate compensating the Saints for their losses—of life, land, and property—during years of persecution in Missouri and their subsequent expulsion from the state. His private vision (initially made known only to a select inner circle of confidants) was even more ambitious. He prophesied the demise of the United States government within his own lifetime and proclaimed that his political Kingdom of God would ultimately overthrow all earthly regimes in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Smith's dual political agendas were managed by a secret Council of Fifty, organized as the nucleus of a new world government. . . . To Joseph's opponents, the prospect of merging church and state in America meant a frightening, and unacceptable, repudiation of a cornerstone of the constitution (Junius & Joseph, p. 1).
Since the community was already upset because the Mormons had a militia and voted as a block, when Smith entered the political arena it just added to people's apprehension.
________________________
Racism in Early Mormonism
Joseph Smith seems to have accepted the prevalent view of his day that darker skinned people were not as favored by God as white skinned people. This attitude is reflected in the Book of Mormon, which tells the story of a group of Israelites who fled Jerusalem about 600 BC and came to America. They soon divided into two groups, the righteous Nephites, who were "white", and the wicked Lamanites, who were cursed with "a skin of blackness" (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 5:21). The story claims that when Lamanites converted to Christianity "their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites" (3 Nephi 2:14-16). The Introduction to the current Book of Mormon maintains that the Lamanites "are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."
Even though early Mormonism reflected many of the same racial attitudes of the larger community, they did not restrict church participation on the basis of race. Viewing the Native Americans as descendents of the Book of Mormon people, Joseph Smith referred to them as "Lamanites." In 1830 he inaugurated a mission to the Indians in Missouri (see Doctrine and Covenants 32:2).
Armand Mauss commented:
In assessing the significance of Mormon relationships with the Indians during the lifetime of Joseph Smith, one must concede the part that these relationships played in inciting the hostility of other Americans against the Mormons, especially in Missouri. . . . Prophecies in the unique Mormon scriptures, as well as some Mormon commentary on those prophecies, seemed to justify such suspicions. When the Book of Mormon has Christ promising that the "remnant of Jacob" (i.e., Indians) shall go among the unrepentant Gentiles "as a young lion among the flocks of sheep" (3 Nephi 21:12-13), it would make the Gentiles wonder. Nor would they likely be reassured by public proclamations warning the unrepentant Gentiles that God is about to sweep them off the land because of the "cries of the red men, whom ye and your fathers have dispossessed and driven from their lands" . . . As part of an emerging separate ethnic identity, the Mormons began to define their destined homeland as extending from Wisconsin down to Texas and from Missouri across to the Rockies and even beyond, with the Indians as partners in building Zion throughout that entire region (All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage, by Armand L. Mauss, p. 55, University of Illinois Press, 2003).
Soon after publishing the Book of Mormon in 1830 Joseph Smith began working on the Book of Moses (printed in the Pearl of Great Price) which reflected the same community concept that blacks descended from Cain (see Moses 7:8, 12, 22). Even though the Mormons at that time accepted the common idea that blacks were from the cursed lineage of Cain they did not view this as restricting their church participation. A few blacks were baptized and at least two were ordained to the priesthood.
When Mormons started settling in Missouri in the early 1830's their attitude toward Native Americans and blacks became a concern of their neighbors. Many Missourians worried that Smith's church, founded in New York, was anti-slavery (see Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 12).
To appease their slave-holding neighbors, on July 16, 1833, the Mormons published an article in their newspaper stating:
". . . our intention was not only to stop free people of color from emigrating to this state, but to prevent them from being admitted as members of the Church" (Evening and the Morning Star, July 16, 1833).
Writing in 1836 Joseph Smith stated:
I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall. . . . It is my privilege then to name certain passages of the Bible . . . "And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren . . ." (Gen. IX:25) . . . I can say, the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come . . . (History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 438).
Oddly, right at the time Smith seems to have been developing his racial doctrines he allowed the ordination of a black named Elijah Abel. Even though Elijah Abel was allowed to retain his priesthood and go on a mission after the Mormons came to Utah, he was not allowed to participate in the temple endowments (see Dialogue, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 28-29).
In 1842 Joseph Smith published his Book of Abraham, which is part of the Pearl of Great Price, in the church-owned Times and Seasons. This new work reflected Smith's growing racist attitude towards blacks and priesthood:
Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, . . . From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham 1:21-22).
Further on in the same chapter we read that Pharaoh, being a descendent of Ham, could not have the priesthood:
Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood . . . (Book of Abraham 1:27).
LDS author Stephen Taggert observed:
With the publication of The Book of Abraham all of the elements for the Church's policy of denying the priesthood to Negroes were present. The curse of Canaan motif borrowed from Southern fundamentalism was being supported with the Church by a foundation of proslavery statements and attitudes which had emerged during the years of crisis in Missouri. . . . (Mormonism's Negro Policy: Social and Historical Origins, by Stephen G. Taggart, pp. 62-63, University of Utah Press, 1970).
Doctrine of Pre-Existence
During this time Joseph Smith started formulating his doctrine of man's pre-earth life. Preaching in 1844, Joseph Smith taught:
The mind of man is as immortal as God himself . . . God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all (History of the Church, vol. 6, pp. 310-311).
The Book of Abraham explains that those who were "noble" in their pre-earth life [man's first estate] were to be the "rulers" on earth [man's second estate] (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham 3:22-23). This led to an interpretation that everyone's birth on earth is a direct result of his/her worthiness in a prior life in heaven. Thus those less valiant were born black while the righteous were born white, with the most worthy being born into Mormon families. In 1845 LDS Apostle Orson Hyde explained that blacks were inferior spirits in the pre-earth state:
At the time the devil was cast out of heaven, there were some spirits that did not know who had authority, whether God or the devil. They consequently did not take a very active part on either side, but rather thought the devil had been abused, . . . These spirits were not considered bad enough to be cast down to hell, and never have bodies; neither were they considered worthy of an honourable body on this earth: . . . But those spirits in heaven that rather lent an influence to the devil, thinking he had a little the best right to govern, but did not take a very active part any way were required to come into the world and take bodies in the accursed lineage of Canaan; and hence the Negro or African race (Speech of Elder Orson Hyde, delivered before the High Priests' Quorum, in Nauvoo, April 27, 1845, printed by John Taylor, p. 30).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| JS ran for president with the platform of emancipation and equality over a decade before the abolitionists movement and Lincoln. In fact JS heavily distributed pamphlets about equality in Lincoln's home state when Lincoln would have been a teenager. Many have speculated that that very flyer might probably have made its way into the hands of old Lincoln and perhaps inspired him. |
The abolitionist movement actually started in England in the 1700’s when the religious conviction of Quakers and others gripped people to oppose it. The first substantial anti-slavery petition was sent to Parliament in 1783 and in 1789 William Wilberforce gave parliament’s first speech against the slave trade but it took them many years to defeat it. The first American abolition society was formed in 1775. Ben Franklin was it’s first president when it was reorganized several years after the War of Independence. The preaching of Lyman Beecher and Nathaniel Taylor in New England and the religious revivals that began in W New York state in 1824 under Charles G. Finney swept much of the North, created a powerful impulse toward social reform—emancipation of the slaves as well as temperance and women's rights. (The historical records of revivals in western NY conflict the timing of JS’s alleged 1820 “first vision” but that is a different topic.) The abolition movement in the US began to reach crusading proportions in the 1830s. Is more likely that JS (or his spokesmen) were just citing popular Northern sentiment of the day.
________________________________________________
About JS run for president, Some former members of the LDS church compiled the following about Nauvoo, Illinois and the JS’s political ambitions:
(The tension in the state is often portrayed as)… just an extension of the seemingly senseless persecution endured by the Mormons through the years.
However, thousands of Mormons were pouring into Nauvoo, which threatened to give them tremendous political power and the ability to affect local elections.
Robert S. Wicks and Fred R. Foister observed:
With ten to twelve thousand inhabitants in 1843, Nauvoo was the second largest city in Illinois, rivaled only by Chicago. The Holy City, as it was often called, dominated the economy of the region (Junius & Joseph, p. 22).
Also during the early 1840's Smith had secretly introduced a number of new doctrines and practices. Besides introducing plural marriage, he secretly instituted the Council of Fifty, a secret governing body, which was a forerunner of his plan to set up a theocracy, the literal Kingdom of God on Earth.
When Smith set up the Nauvoo Legion, with himself elevated to "Lieutenant General," the non-Mormon community became fearful of the militant stance of the Mormons. On July 21, 1841, the Warsaw Signal reported:
How military these people are becoming! Everything they say or do seems to breathe the spirit of military tactics. Their prophet appears, on all occasions, in his sp[l]endid regimental dress signs his name Lieut. General, and more titles are to be found in the Nauvoo Legion, than any one book on military tactics can produce; . . . Truly fighting must be a part of the creed of these Saints! (Warsaw Signal, July 21, 1841).
D. Michael Quinn observed that
the Nauvoo Legion was no ordinary militia. By 1842 the legion had 2,000 troops, by far the largest single militia in Illinois. Within two years, the Nauvoo Legion had nearly 3,000 soldiers. By comparison the U.S. army had less than 8,500 soldiers that year (The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p. 106).
Besides this, the Mormons tended to vote as a block. Thomas Ford, Governor of Illinois from 1842-1846, made these observations:
But the great cause of popular fury was, that the Mormons at several preceding elections had cast their vote as a unit, thereby making the fact apparent that no one could aspire to the honors or offices of the country, within the sphere of their influence, without their approbation and votes. . . .
This one principle and practice of theirs arrayed against them in deadly hostility all aspirants for office who were not sure of their support, all who have been unsuccessful in elections, and all who were too proud to court their influence, with all their friends and connections (History of Illinois, by Thomas Ford, 1854, pp. 329-330).
Furthermore, Smith had decided to run for President of the United States. Governor Ford commented:
To crown the whole folly of the Mormons, in the spring of 1844, Joe Smith announced himself as a candidate for president of the United States. His followers were confident that he would be elected. Two or three thousand missionaries were immediately sent out to preach their religion, and to electioneer in favor of their prophet for the presidency. This folly at once covered that people with ridicule in the minds of all sensible men, and brought them into conflict with the zealots and bigots of all political parties; as the arrogance and extravagance of their religious pretensions had already aroused the opposition of all other denominations in religion (History of Illinois, p. 321).
Robert S. Wicks and Fred R. Foister give the following assessment of Smith's bid for the presidency:
For the thirty-eight-year-old prophet Joseph, the American presidency was only the beginning. His publicly stated motivation for seeking the presidential chair was to facilitate compensating the Saints for their losses—of life, land, and property—during years of persecution in Missouri and their subsequent expulsion from the state. His private vision (initially made known only to a select inner circle of confidants) was even more ambitious. He prophesied the demise of the United States government within his own lifetime and proclaimed that his political Kingdom of God would ultimately overthrow all earthly regimes in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Smith's dual political agendas were managed by a secret Council of Fifty, organized as the nucleus of a new world government. . . . To Joseph's opponents, the prospect of merging church and state in America meant a frightening, and unacceptable, repudiation of a cornerstone of the constitution (Junius & Joseph, p. 1).
Since the community was already upset because the Mormons had a militia and voted as a block, when Smith entered the political arena it just added to people's apprehension.
________________________
Racism in Early Mormonism
Joseph Smith seems to have accepted the prevalent view of his day that darker skinned people were not as favored by God as white skinned people. This attitude is reflected in the Book of Mormon, which tells the story of a group of Israelites who fled Jerusalem about 600 BC and came to America. They soon divided into two groups, the righteous Nephites, who were "white", and the wicked Lamanites, who were cursed with "a skin of blackness" (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 5:21). The story claims that when Lamanites converted to Christianity "their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites" (3 Nephi 2:14-16). The Introduction to the current Book of Mormon maintains that the Lamanites "are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."
Even though early Mormonism reflected many of the same racial attitudes of the larger community, they did not restrict church participation on the basis of race. Viewing the Native Americans as descendents of the Book of Mormon people, Joseph Smith referred to them as "Lamanites." In 1830 he inaugurated a mission to the Indians in Missouri (see Doctrine and Covenants 32:2).
Armand Mauss commented:
In assessing the significance of Mormon relationships with the Indians during the lifetime of Joseph Smith, one must concede the part that these relationships played in inciting the hostility of other Americans against the Mormons, especially in Missouri. . . . Prophecies in the unique Mormon scriptures, as well as some Mormon commentary on those prophecies, seemed to justify such suspicions. When the Book of Mormon has Christ promising that the "remnant of Jacob" (i.e., Indians) shall go among the unrepentant Gentiles "as a young lion among the flocks of sheep" (3 Nephi 21:12-13), it would make the Gentiles wonder. Nor would they likely be reassured by public proclamations warning the unrepentant Gentiles that God is about to sweep them off the land because of the "cries of the red men, whom ye and your fathers have dispossessed and driven from their lands" . . . As part of an emerging separate ethnic identity, the Mormons began to define their destined homeland as extending from Wisconsin down to Texas and from Missouri across to the Rockies and even beyond, with the Indians as partners in building Zion throughout that entire region (All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage, by Armand L. Mauss, p. 55, University of Illinois Press, 2003).
Soon after publishing the Book of Mormon in 1830 Joseph Smith began working on the Book of Moses (printed in the Pearl of Great Price) which reflected the same community concept that blacks descended from Cain (see Moses 7:8, 12, 22). Even though the Mormons at that time accepted the common idea that blacks were from the cursed lineage of Cain they did not view this as restricting their church participation. A few blacks were baptized and at least two were ordained to the priesthood.
When Mormons started settling in Missouri in the early 1830's their attitude toward Native Americans and blacks became a concern of their neighbors. Many Missourians worried that Smith's church, founded in New York, was anti-slavery (see Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 12).
To appease their slave-holding neighbors, on July 16, 1833, the Mormons published an article in their newspaper stating:
". . . our intention was not only to stop free people of color from emigrating to this state, but to prevent them from being admitted as members of the Church" (Evening and the Morning Star, July 16, 1833).
Writing in 1836 Joseph Smith stated:
I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall. . . . It is my privilege then to name certain passages of the Bible . . . "And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren . . ." (Gen. IX:25) . . . I can say, the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come . . . (History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 438).
Oddly, right at the time Smith seems to have been developing his racial doctrines he allowed the ordination of a black named Elijah Abel. Even though Elijah Abel was allowed to retain his priesthood and go on a mission after the Mormons came to Utah, he was not allowed to participate in the temple endowments (see Dialogue, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 28-29).
In 1842 Joseph Smith published his Book of Abraham, which is part of the Pearl of Great Price, in the church-owned Times and Seasons. This new work reflected Smith's growing racist attitude towards blacks and priesthood:
Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, . . . From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham 1:21-22).
Further on in the same chapter we read that Pharaoh, being a descendent of Ham, could not have the priesthood:
Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood . . . (Book of Abraham 1:27).
LDS author Stephen Taggert observed:
With the publication of The Book of Abraham all of the elements for the Church's policy of denying the priesthood to Negroes were present. The curse of Canaan motif borrowed from Southern fundamentalism was being supported with the Church by a foundation of proslavery statements and attitudes which had emerged during the years of crisis in Missouri. . . . (Mormonism's Negro Policy: Social and Historical Origins, by Stephen G. Taggart, pp. 62-63, University of Utah Press, 1970).
Doctrine of Pre-Existence
During this time Joseph Smith started formulating his doctrine of man's pre-earth life. Preaching in 1844, Joseph Smith taught:
The mind of man is as immortal as God himself . . . God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all (History of the Church, vol. 6, pp. 310-311).
The Book of Abraham explains that those who were "noble" in their pre-earth life [man's first estate] were to be the "rulers" on earth [man's second estate] (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham 3:22-23). This led to an interpretation that everyone's birth on earth is a direct result of his/her worthiness in a prior life in heaven. Thus those less valiant were born black while the righteous were born white, with the most worthy being born into Mormon families. In 1845 LDS Apostle Orson Hyde explained that blacks were inferior spirits in the pre-earth state:
At the time the devil was cast out of heaven, there were some spirits that did not know who had authority, whether God or the devil. They consequently did not take a very active part on either side, but rather thought the devil had been abused, . . . These spirits were not considered bad enough to be cast down to hell, and never have bodies; neither were they considered worthy of an honourable body on this earth: . . . But those spirits in heaven that rather lent an influence to the devil, thinking he had a little the best right to govern, but did not take a very active part any way were required to come into the world and take bodies in the accursed lineage of Canaan; and hence the Negro or African race (Speech of Elder Orson Hyde, delivered before the High Priests' Quorum, in Nauvoo, April 27, 1845, printed by John Taylor, p. 30).
The BOM, not racist....as my post proves. I have made this argument in several forums and no one has been able to answer my question about the mark in the forehead. The text explicitly states the skins were girdles about their loins. There is not one mention of black or white epidermis and until someone answers my question or can disprove me using the BOm(which cannot be done, I've scrutinized every verse in relation to this subject) I will remain convinced that the bOm says absolutely nothing about actual epidermis color (race).
I am sure you will remain convinced of the technicalities in your mind. You just have to ignore how the whole history of ‘faithful mormon’s played out the last 100 years that’s all.
Michael Marquardt, a young Mormon scholar who became very disturbed with the Church's policy of suppressing important records, became interested in this revelation. He began to do research and found that some Mormon scholars had copies of the 1831 revelation, but they had promised not to make any copies. Finally. Mr. Marquardt learned what appears to be the real reason why the revelation has been suppressed. This is that the revelation commanded the Mormons to marry the Indians to make them a "white" and "delightsome" people.
Now, to a Christian who is familiar with the teachings of the Bible, the color of a man's skin makes no difference. In Mormon theology, however, a dark skin is a sign of God's displeasure. In the Mormon publication Juvenile Instructor we read:
We will first inquire into the results of the approbation or displeasure of God upon a people, starting with the belief that a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind. . . . when God made man in his own image and pronounced him very good, . . . he made him white. We have no record of any of God's favored servants being of a black race. (Juvenile Instructor, v. 3, page 157)
The teaching that a dark skin is the result of God's displeasure comes directly out of Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon teaches that about 600 B.C. a prophet named Lehi brought his family to America. Those who were righteous (the Nephites) had a white skin, but those who rebelled against God (the Lamanites) were cursed with a dark skin. The Lamanites eventually destroyed the Nephites; therefore, the Indians living today are referred to as Lamanites. The following verses from the Book of Mormon explain the curse on the Lamanites:
And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations. (Book of Mormon, I Nephi 12:23)
And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity . . . wherefore, as they were white, and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might no be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. . . .
And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. (2 Nephi 5:21 and 23)
The Book of Mormon states that when the Lamanites repented of their sins they became white like the Nephites: "And their curse was taken from them and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;" (3 Nephi 2:15)
The Book of Mormon also promised that in the last days the Lamanites—i.e., the Indians—would repent and become a "white and delightsome people":
And the gospel of Jesus Christ shall be declared among them; . . . and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people. (2 Nephi 30:5-6)
These teachings have caused the Mormon Church some embarrassment. Anti-Mormon writers have claimed that the Indians who have become converted to the Church have not become "white" as the Book of Mormon predicts. Spencer W. Kimball, who recently became the twelfth President of the Mormon Church, does not feel that this criticism is justified. He feels that the Indians are actually becoming a "white and delightsome people." In the LDS General Conference, held in October 1960, Spencer W. Kimball stated:
I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today as against that of only fifteen years ago. Truly the scales of darkness are falling from their eyes, and they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people. . . .
The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.
At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated. (Improvement Era, Dec.1960, pp. 922-923)
While Spencer W. Kimball seems to feel that the Indians are to be made white by the power of God, Michael Marquardt learned that Joseph Smith's 1831 revelation says they are to be made white through intermarriage with the Mormons. Because of this fact, the Mormon leaders seemed to feel that it was necessary to keep the revelation from their people. Only the most trusted men, such as Dr. Hyrum Andrus, were allowed a copy of it. It was only after a great deal of research that Mr. Marquardt was able to obtain a typed copy of the revelation. In our new book Mormonism Like Watergate? we reproduce this revelation in its entirety, but in this study we only have room for the most important portions:
Part Substance
of a revelation by Joseph Smith Jr., given over the boundary, west of Jackson County, Missouri, on Sunday morning, July 17, 1831, when seven Elders: viz., Joseph Smith Jr., Oliver Cowdery, W. W. Phelps, Martin Harris, Joseph Coe, Ziba Peterson, and Joshua Lewis united their hearts in prayer, in a private place, to inquire of the Lord who should preach the first sermon to the remnant of the Lamanites and Nephites and the people of that section, that should assemble that day in the Indian country, to hear the Gospel and the revelations according to the Book of Mormon.
Among the company, there being neither pen, ink nor paper, Joseph remarked that the Lord could preserve his words, as he had ever done, till the time appointed, and proceeded:
1 Verily, Verily, saith the Lord, your Redeemer, even Jesus Christ, the light and the life of the world, . . .
4 Verily, I say unto you, that the wisdom of man, in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my holy priesthood, but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles. . . .
7 Be patient, therefore, possessing your souls in peace and love, . . . even so. Amen.
Reported by W.W.P.
About three years after this was given, I asked brother Joseph, privately, how "we" that were mentioned in the revelation could take wives from the "natives" as we were all married men? He replied, instantly "In the same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Kenturah; and Jacob took Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah; by revelation—the saints of the Lord are always directed by revelation.'
The letters "W.W.P." stand for William Wine Phelps, who served as a scribe for the Mormon leaders.
According to what Mr. Marquardt could learn, the original revelation is preserved in a vault in the LDS Church Historical Department. The paper on which it is written has the appearance of being very old.
There is a second copy of the revelation in the Historical Department. This appears in a letter from W. W. Phelps to Brigham Young. The letter is dated August 12, 1861. Michael Marquardt has been able to obtain a copy of this letter, and we have reproduced it in its entirety in our booklet Mormonism Like Watergate? Except for the opening and closing lines, this letter is almost identical to the other document.
In this new book Doctrines of the Kingdom, Dr. Hyrum L. Andrus of Brigham Young University, actually quotes part of this revelation as it appears in the letter, but he is very careful to suppress the fact that the wives to be taken were Lamanites:
The Prophet understood the principle of plural marriage as early as 1831. William W. Phelps stated that on Sunday morning, July 17, 1831, he and others were with Joseph Smith over the border west of Jackson County, Missouri, when the latter-day Seer received a revelation, the substance of which said in part: "Verily I say unto you, that the wisdom of man in his fallen state knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my Holy Priesthood, but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness." According to Elder Phelps, the revelation then indicated that in due time the brethren would be required to take plural wives. (Doctrines of the Kingdom, Salt Lake City, 1973, page 450)
In footnote 37 on the same page, Dr. Andrus gives his source for this information as "Letter of William W. Phelps to Brigham Young, August 12, 1861. Church Historian's Library, Salt Lake City, Utah." (Ibid., page 450)
The reader will notice that in his quotation from the revelation, Dr. Andrus suppressed the important portion concerning the Indians. His quotation ended with ". . . ye shall know when ye receive a fulness." The revelation itself, and the copy in Phelps' letter, goes on to mention the Lamanites. We quote the following from the letter:
. . . ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just for even now their females are most [more?] virtuous than the gentiles.
The reader will note that except for the word "most," our copy of Phelps' letter agrees with the copy of the revelation which we have previously cited. Both these copies contain the words that Dr. Andrus has suppressed.
Since we are unable to examine the original revelation, it is very difficult to determine when it was actually recorded. From W. W. Phelps' letter to Brigham Young we know that the revelation had to have been recorded by 1861. As we understand it, the first document—containing only the revelation and Phelps' comment—appears to be older than the letter dated August 12, 1861. It is possible that it could have been recorded any time between 1831 and 1861. If the revelation and the note at the bottom were written at the same time, then obviously the revelation could not have been written until some time after 1834. It could be, however that the note was added at a later time. It will not be possible to decide this vital question unless the Mormon leaders allow scholars to closely examine the document itself or allow photographs of it to be printed.
Regardless of when the revelation was actually written down on paper, however, we have found definite historical proof that it was given in 1831. The proof is derived from a letter written by Ezra Booth and published in the Ohio Star only five months after the revelation was given! In this letter Ezra Booth stated:
In addition to this, and to co-operate with it, it has been made known by revelation, that it will be pleasing to the Lord, should they form a matrimonial alliance with the Natives; and by this means the Elders, who comply with the things so pleasing to the Lord, and for which the Lord has promised to bless those who do it abundantly, gain a residence in the Indian territory, independent of the agent. It has been made known to one, who has left his wife in the state of N.Y. that he is entirely free from his wife, and he is at liberty to take him a wife from among the Lamanites. It was easily perceived that this permission, was perfectly suited to his desires. I have frequently heard him state, that the Lord had made it known to him, that he is as free from his wife as from any other woman; and the only crime that I have ever heard alleged against her is, she is violently opposed to Mormonism. But before this contemplated marriage can be carried into effect, he must return to the state of N.Y. and settle his business, for fear, should he return, after that affair had taken place, the civil authority would apprehend him as a criminal. (Ohio Star, Dec. 8, 1831)
We had originally discovered Booth's statement in an 1834 reprint of his letters, but Michael Marquardt found a microfilm copy of the original paper in the Mormon Church's Genealogical Library in Salt Lake City.
Since Ezra Booth did go to Missouri and was well acquainted with the Elders, his letter furnishes irrefutable proof that Joseph Smith gave the revelation commanding the Mormons to marry Lamanite women.
Like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, the second President of the Mormon Church, taught that "the curse will be removed" from off the Indians and "they will become 'a white and delightsome people.' " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, page 143)
While Brigham Young suppressed the 1831 revelation, there is evidence that he was familiar with its teaching that the Indians should be made white through intermarriage. William Hall said that just after the Mormons left Nauvoo, Brigham Young gave a speech which "was in substance as follows":
"We are now going to the Lamanites, to whom we intend to be messengers of instruction. . . . We will show them that in consequence of their transgressions a curse has been inflicted upon them—in the darkness of their skins. We will have intermarriages with them, they marrying our young women, and we taking their young squaws to wife. By these means it is the will of the Lord that the curse of their color shall be removed and they restored to their pristine beauty. . ." (The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed, Cincinnati, 1852, page 59)
Juanita Brooks gives the following information concerning the Salmon River Mission:
Very early, some of the Mormon leaders recommended that the missionaries marry Indian women as a means of cementing the friendship between the races. . . .
The Elders who were sent to the Salmon River Mission were given similar instructions by Brigham Young and his party, who visited them in May, 1857. At least three different missionaries tell of them, . . . Milton G. Hammond says simply, "The president and members of the Twelve all spoke. Pres. Young spoke to Elders marrying natives." William H. Dame . . . wrote in his journal: "Meeting was held . . . Young men might take squaws to wife. . . ." The mission clerk, David Moore, gave a somewhat more detailed account:
"Sunday, May 10, [1857] . . . Pres. H. C. Kimball & Wells addressed Missionaries . . . on the importance of the Missionaries being faithful . . . and for them to marry the Native women. . . . Pres. B. Young said, . . . when the Lord opened they [sic] way before them so that they Could Marry Girls they would be very likely to be enabled to keep them. . . ."
As a result of these teachings, at least three of the brethren married Indian women. . . . As to the Indian women whom they had taken as wives the "L.D.S. Journal History" of April 9, 1858, records: "Two squaws who had married the brethren refused to come, fearing the soldiers would kill all the Mormons." (Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 12, pp. 28-30)
T. B. H. Stenhouse gives the following information concerning the Salmon River Mission:
Before any of the married brethren could make love to a maiden with the view of making her a second, third, or tenth wife, he was expected to go and obtain Brigham's permission, . . . He sent at one time a mission to Fort Limhi, Salmon River, to civilize the Indians. The brethren were counselled not to take their families with them, but they were to live with the Indians, to educate and civilize them, and to teach them various trades and farming. When Brigham and Heber afterwards visited the missionaries to see how they were succeeding, Heber, in his quaint way, told them that he did not see how the modern predictions could well be fulfilled about the Indians becoming "a white and delightsome people" without extending polygamy to the natives. The approach of the United States army, in 1857, contributed to break up that mission, but not before Heber's hint had been clearly understood, and the prophecy half fulfilled! Heber was very practical, and believed that the people should never ask "the Lord" to do for them what they could do themselves, and, as all "Israel" had long prayed that the Indians might speedily become a "white and delightsome people," he thought it was the duty of the missionaries to assist "the Lord" in fulfilling his promises. This was not the first time that a Mormon prophet attempted to aid in bringing to pass the prophecies of "the Lord." More than one missionary appears to have thoroughly understood him! (The Rocky Mountain Saints, pp. 657-659)
In a footnote on page 659 of the same book, Mr. Stenhouse stated:
One young man replied to Brother Heber that it was the teaching of the Church that the elders should always follow their "file-leaders," and that "if President Young and he should each take a squaw to wife and thus set the example, they would certainly follow suit." That ended the "bleaching" of the "Lamanites."
William Hall claimed that Brigham Young was married "to two young squaws," but so far we have been unable to find any documentation for this statement. According to John D. Lee , on May 12, 1849, Brigham Young said that he did not want to take the Indians "in his arms until the curse is removed from of[f] them. . . . But we will take their children & s[c]hool them & teach them to be clenly & to love morality & then raise up seed amoung them & in this way they will be brought back into the presance & knowledge of God. . . ." (A Mormon Chronicle, The Diaries of John D. Lee, vol. 1, page 108)
It would appear, then, that Brigham Young would not follow Joseph Smith's revelation to take "wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just, . . ." Even though the revelation said that "their females are more virtuous than the gentiles," Brigham Young built up his "kingdom" with women who were already "white and delightsome."
If Brigham Young did not follow the 1831 revelation to marry the Lamanites, we must remember that he was only following the example of Joseph Smith, for Smith also married "white" women. Though Young suppressed Smith's 1831 revelation and chose "white" women in preference to the Lamanites, he did at least encourage others to marry them "that the curse of their color shall be removed and they restored to their pristine beauty."
After Brigham Young's death the idea that the Indians should be made "white and delightsome" through intermarriage began to fall into disrepute. The Mormon leaders have tended to frown upon interracial marriage with the Indians, even though there is no written rule against the practice.
The Mormon Apostle Mark E. Petersen made these comments in an address delivered at Brigham Young University:
What should be our attitude as Latter-day Saints toward negro and other dark race? . . . We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in our pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Indians, some as Negroes, some as Americans, some as Latter-day Saints. These are rewards and punishments, . . .
Now let's talk segregation again for a few moments. . . . When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, . . . He engaged in an act of segregation. . . . In placing a curse on Laman and Lemuel, He engaged in segregation. . . .
The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negroes we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that He places a dark skin upon them as a curse—as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. (2 Nephi 5:21) . . .
What is our advice with respect to intermarriage with Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiians and so on? I will tell you what advice I give personally. If a boy or girl comes to me claiming to be in love with a Chinese or Japanese or a Hawaiian or a person of any other dark race, I do my best to talk them out of it. I tell them that I think the Hawaiians should marry Hawaiians, the Japanese ought to marry Japanese, and the Chinese ought to marry Chinese, and the Caucasians should marry Caucasians, . . . I teach against inter-marriage of all kinds. (Race Problems—As They Affect The Church, Address by Mark E. Petersen, Brigham Young University, August 27, 1954)
Mark E. Petersen is second in line to become President of the Mormon Church. The Apostle Petersen and other Mormon leaders who are opposed to intermarriage will probably be very embarrassed now that the 1831 revelation has come to light. The fact that they have suppressed this revelation plainly shows that they do not really believe that it came from God. They have been involved in a cover-up to protect the image of Joseph Smith.
QUOTE
Can you show me where it referred to skin color in any edition??????????I have a replica of the 1830 edition and a 1920 and 1940 and 1980. Besides punctuation changes they are indistinguishable. They all use the exact grammar. Its true some white delightsome verses have been changed to pure and delightsome, but as I showed these references were referring to the girdle garments being made white and not skin color. The same language was used in the bible as I showed you...is the bible racist? So they changed it to a synonym bc a bunch of ignorant people(including themselves for 100 years) dont understand symbology.
LDS - "You see some classes of the human family that are BLACK, UNCOUTH, UNCOMELY, DISAGREEABLE and LOW in their habits, WILD, and seemingly DEPRIVED OF NEARLY ALL THE BLESSINGS OF THE INTELLIGENCE that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been KILLED, and THAT WOULD HAVE PUT A TERMINATION TO THAT LINE OF HUMAN BEINGS. This was not to be, and the Lord put A MARK upon him, which is THE FLAT NOSE AND BLACK SKIN. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race -- that they should be the "servants of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree." LDS "Prophet" Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290, 1859, emphasis added.
_______________________________________
Changes, why so many changes?
Unannotated Changes
Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book in the world, and that a man could get closer to God by reading it than any other book.64 The Mormon Church has had a policy of not annotating its changes in the Book of Mormon, thus its people are not generally aware that it has been changing the Book of Mormon. In fact, LDS leaders still use this quotation to impress its members with the book's accuracy.65
A look at the original 1830 edition will quickly disillusion anyone who believes this. As one critic put it, "the Book of Mormon, so far as examined, lets us down to the level of an ignorant, unlettered, unsophisticated youth."66
While the doctrinal and archaeological errors remain in their totality in present editions, literally hundreds of grammatical errors and misuses of the English language which appear in the original 1830 edition have been edited out.
Examples are: "as I was a journeying" (249; Alma 10:7; 8:10); "Lamanitish servants a going forth" (271; Alma 17:26; 12:38), "a preaching" (284; Alma 21:11; 13:15), "a begging" (309; Alma 30:56; 6:72), etc.67
This has resulted in the publication of another book by the Utah Lighthouse Mission which compares the original 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon with the 1964 LDS edition, noting all the changes.
It is appropriately named 3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon. Now, however, the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon has made it obsolete, for it has over two hundred additional changes.
An example of how the editing still does not go far enough may be found in Helaman 7:8, 9; 3:8-9. The 1830 edition reads, "Yea, if my days could have been in them days, then would my soul have had joy in the righteousness of my brethren. But behold, I am consigned that these are my days . . . (p. 427)." The Mormon editors caught the first error and changed "them" to "these," but left "consigned," which should have been changed to "resigned."
When confronted by the fact that their own leaders have been editing the Book of Mormon, Mormons generally try to excuse them by saying that the changes are only superficial. Some of these changes go far beyond grammar. For example, the 1830 Book of Mormon tells of translating by King Benjamin which subsequent editions changed from King Benjamin to King Mosiah (200; Mosiah 21:28; 9:170). Why this change? Because closer examination of the text shows that King Benjamin had died by then and Mosiah was king.68
Mormons also defend editing by their church leaders on the grounds that they are led by the Holy Spirit in whatever corrections they may make.69 However, upon close examination of the changes, it becomes obvious that some of the editing is worse than the original text.
An example of this in the 1830 edition is found on page 87; (2 Ne. 12:8-9; 8:24-25). This is a passage of Isaiah and corresponds to Is. 2:8-9 in the Bible. The primary change in this verse is the addition of the word "not" in verse 9; 25. The 1830 edition added it once, causing confusion. Subsequent editing, apparently by Joseph Smith himself, added another "not" which compounded the confusion. The result is that this passage, which in Isaiah condemns idolatry, becomes, in the Book of Mormon, a command to commit idolatry:70
Their land is also full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made. And the mean man boweth not down, and the great man humbleth himself not, therefore, forgive him not.
Samples of other glaring errors which need to be edited are:71
Helaman 9:6; 3:73'Now, immediately when the judge had been murdered'he being stabbed by his brother by a garb of secrecy, and he fled...
Alma 43:38; 20:41'While on the other hand, there was now and then a man fell among the Nephites, by their swords and the loss of blood, they being shielded from the more vital parts of the body, or the more vital parts of the body being shielded from the strokes of the Lamanites, by their breastplates...
Mormon General Authority B. H. Roberts wrote wearily about his frustration with Book of Mormon errors:72
Many errors, verbal and grammatical, have already been eliminated in the later English editions, and there is no valid reason why every one of those that remain should not be eliminated...There is just no good reason why we should not have just as good a Book of Mormon in the English language as they now have in the French, the German, the Swedish and the Danish.. The present writer hopes that he will live to see those verbal and grammatical changes authorized.
Despite Joseph Smith's declaration that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book, the Book of Mormon actually apologizes for being poorly written, yet practically in the same sentence, brazenly condemns all who refuse to believe it:
...when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words. And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn.(Ether 12:25-26; 5:26-27)
1 Jerald and Sandra Tanner, MORMONISM: SHADOW OR REALITY? (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1982), 72.
2M. T. Lamb, THE GOLDEN BIBLE OR "THE BOOK OF MORMON." IS IT FROM GOD? (1887; photomechanical reprint, Salt Lake: Utah Lighthouse Ministry) 1-4.
65 Tanner, 3.913 g, Intro., 1.
66 Lamb, 59.
67 LaMar Petersen, PROBLEMS IN THE MORMON TEXT (Concord, CA: Pacific Publishing, n.d.), 13.
68 Tanner, 3,913 CHANGES, Intro., 5.
69 ibid.
70 Ed Decker, SAINTS ALIVE IN JESUS NEWSLETTER. (Issaquah, WA: Ex-Mormons for Jesus, June 1985), n.p.
71 Lamb, 56.
72 Tanner, 3,913 CHANGES, Intro., 5.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Can you show me where it referred to skin color in any edition??????????I have a replica of the 1830 edition and a 1920 and 1940 and 1980. Besides punctuation changes they are indistinguishable. They all use the exact grammar. Its true some white delightsome verses have been changed to pure and delightsome, but as I showed these references were referring to the girdle garments being made white and not skin color. The same language was used in the bible as I showed you...is the bible racist? So they changed it to a synonym bc a bunch of ignorant people(including themselves for 100 years) dont understand symbology. |
LDS - "You see some classes of the human family that are BLACK, UNCOUTH, UNCOMELY, DISAGREEABLE and LOW in their habits, WILD, and seemingly DEPRIVED OF NEARLY ALL THE BLESSINGS OF THE INTELLIGENCE that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been KILLED, and THAT WOULD HAVE PUT A TERMINATION TO THAT LINE OF HUMAN BEINGS. This was not to be, and the Lord put A MARK upon him, which is THE FLAT NOSE AND BLACK SKIN. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race -- that they should be the "servants of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree." LDS "Prophet" Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290, 1859, emphasis added.
_______________________________________
Changes, why so many changes?
Unannotated Changes
Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book in the world, and that a man could get closer to God by reading it than any other book.64 The Mormon Church has had a policy of not annotating its changes in the Book of Mormon, thus its people are not generally aware that it has been changing the Book of Mormon. In fact, LDS leaders still use this quotation to impress its members with the book's accuracy.65
A look at the original 1830 edition will quickly disillusion anyone who believes this. As one critic put it, "the Book of Mormon, so far as examined, lets us down to the level of an ignorant, unlettered, unsophisticated youth."66
While the doctrinal and archaeological errors remain in their totality in present editions, literally hundreds of grammatical errors and misuses of the English language which appear in the original 1830 edition have been edited out.
Examples are: "as I was a journeying" (249; Alma 10:7; 8:10); "Lamanitish servants a going forth" (271; Alma 17:26; 12:38), "a preaching" (284; Alma 21:11; 13:15), "a begging" (309; Alma 30:56; 6:72), etc.67
This has resulted in the publication of another book by the Utah Lighthouse Mission which compares the original 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon with the 1964 LDS edition, noting all the changes.
It is appropriately named 3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon. Now, however, the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon has made it obsolete, for it has over two hundred additional changes.
An example of how the editing still does not go far enough may be found in Helaman 7:8, 9; 3:8-9. The 1830 edition reads, "Yea, if my days could have been in them days, then would my soul have had joy in the righteousness of my brethren. But behold, I am consigned that these are my days . . . (p. 427)." The Mormon editors caught the first error and changed "them" to "these," but left "consigned," which should have been changed to "resigned."
When confronted by the fact that their own leaders have been editing the Book of Mormon, Mormons generally try to excuse them by saying that the changes are only superficial. Some of these changes go far beyond grammar. For example, the 1830 Book of Mormon tells of translating by King Benjamin which subsequent editions changed from King Benjamin to King Mosiah (200; Mosiah 21:28; 9:170). Why this change? Because closer examination of the text shows that King Benjamin had died by then and Mosiah was king.68
Mormons also defend editing by their church leaders on the grounds that they are led by the Holy Spirit in whatever corrections they may make.69 However, upon close examination of the changes, it becomes obvious that some of the editing is worse than the original text.
An example of this in the 1830 edition is found on page 87; (2 Ne. 12:8-9; 8:24-25). This is a passage of Isaiah and corresponds to Is. 2:8-9 in the Bible. The primary change in this verse is the addition of the word "not" in verse 9; 25. The 1830 edition added it once, causing confusion. Subsequent editing, apparently by Joseph Smith himself, added another "not" which compounded the confusion. The result is that this passage, which in Isaiah condemns idolatry, becomes, in the Book of Mormon, a command to commit idolatry:70
Their land is also full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made. And the mean man boweth not down, and the great man humbleth himself not, therefore, forgive him not.
Samples of other glaring errors which need to be edited are:71
Helaman 9:6; 3:73'Now, immediately when the judge had been murdered'he being stabbed by his brother by a garb of secrecy, and he fled...
Alma 43:38; 20:41'While on the other hand, there was now and then a man fell among the Nephites, by their swords and the loss of blood, they being shielded from the more vital parts of the body, or the more vital parts of the body being shielded from the strokes of the Lamanites, by their breastplates...
Mormon General Authority B. H. Roberts wrote wearily about his frustration with Book of Mormon errors:72
Many errors, verbal and grammatical, have already been eliminated in the later English editions, and there is no valid reason why every one of those that remain should not be eliminated...There is just no good reason why we should not have just as good a Book of Mormon in the English language as they now have in the French, the German, the Swedish and the Danish.. The present writer hopes that he will live to see those verbal and grammatical changes authorized.
Despite Joseph Smith's declaration that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book, the Book of Mormon actually apologizes for being poorly written, yet practically in the same sentence, brazenly condemns all who refuse to believe it:
...when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words. And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn.(Ether 12:25-26; 5:26-27)
1 Jerald and Sandra Tanner, MORMONISM: SHADOW OR REALITY? (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1982), 72.
2M. T. Lamb, THE GOLDEN BIBLE OR "THE BOOK OF MORMON." IS IT FROM GOD? (1887; photomechanical reprint, Salt Lake: Utah Lighthouse Ministry) 1-4.
65 Tanner, 3.913 g, Intro., 1.
66 Lamb, 59.
67 LaMar Petersen, PROBLEMS IN THE MORMON TEXT (Concord, CA: Pacific Publishing, n.d.), 13.
68 Tanner, 3,913 CHANGES, Intro., 5.
69 ibid.
70 Ed Decker, SAINTS ALIVE IN JESUS NEWSLETTER. (Issaquah, WA: Ex-Mormons for Jesus, June 1985), n.p.
71 Lamb, 56.
72 Tanner, 3,913 CHANGES, Intro., 5.
Thats bc JS understood it was symbology and probably so did the people who changed it back. JS did it bc I think too many people were reading the race thing into it and he did not agree or like that. Later people thought "it is just a synonym, people will have to grow up and realize that the jews along with dozens of other cultures use the terms black and white as symbols for purity and filthiness" so they changed it back. Now, imagine your JS and you faked the bOm, would you go through the trouble of conceiving a plot line of blacks against whites, writing that entire book out, publishing said book, and just a couple of years later say....Well, I can change all the work and my entire premise by changing one word in two verses?
Since we are unable to examine the original revelation about marrying the native americans to make them white, it is very difficult to determine when it was actually recorded. From W. W. Phelps' letter to Brigham Young we know that the revelation had to have been recorded by 1861. As we understand it, the first document—containing only the revelation and Phelps' comment—appears to be older than the letter dated August 12, 1861. It is possible that it could have been recorded any time between 1831 and 1861. If the revelation and the note at the bottom were written at the same time, then obviously the revelation could not have been written until some time after 1834. It could be, however that the note was added at a later time. It will not be possible to decide this vital question unless the Mormon leaders allow scholars to closely examine the document itself or allow photographs of it to be printed.
Regardless of when the revelation was actually written down on paper, however, we have found definite historical proof that it was given in 1831. The proof is derived from a letter written by Ezra Booth and published in the Ohio Star only five months after the revelation was given! In this letter Ezra Booth stated:
In addition to this, and to co-operate with it, it has been made known by revelation, that it will be pleasing to the Lord, should they form a matrimonial alliance with the Natives; and by this means the Elders, who comply with the things so pleasing to the Lord, and for which the Lord has promised to bless those who do it abundantly, gain a residence in the Indian territory, independent of the agent. It has been made known to one, who has left his wife in the state of N.Y. that he is entirely free from his wife, and he is at liberty to take him a wife from among the Lamanites. It was easily perceived that this permission, was perfectly suited to his desires. I have frequently heard him state, that the Lord had made it known to him, that he is as free from his wife as from any other woman; and the only crime that I have ever heard alleged against her is, she is violently opposed to Mormonism. But before this contemplated marriage can be carried into effect, he must return to the state of N.Y. and settle his business, for fear, should he return, after that affair had taken place, the civil authority would apprehend him as a criminal. (Ohio Star, Dec. 8, 1831)
We had originally discovered Booth's statement in an 1834 reprint of his letters, but Michael Marquardt found a microfilm copy of the original paper in the Mormon Church's Genealogical Library in Salt Lake City.
Since Ezra Booth did go to Missouri and was well acquainted with the Elders, his letter furnishes irrefutable proof that Joseph Smith gave the revelation commanding the Mormons to marry Lamanite women.
QUOTE
Thats my whole point, irrelevant similarities can be found in two books which have no relation. The fact that the BOM has more irrelevant similarities with blades of grass than it does with solomon spaulding is indicative of their being no relationship of the bOM to Spaulding or View of Hebrews.
The BOM may have some of the same words at Whitman’s ‘Leaves of Grass’ because Whitman likewise wrote in English and used objects commonly occurring in life. That about all there is to it. As a poem, there is no plot and it doesn’t claim to be a historical record. You are missing the implications of the obvious.
The ideas of the BOM of Mormon were simply not original in 1830. There were a number of preexisting sources for these ideas available in the area from men who penned their work before JS ever wrote the BOM with the help of Cowdry.
Spaulding’s work was an abridged ‘history’ of extinct inhabitants of ancient America with a very similar outline as the BOM. Ethan’s Smith’s “View of the Hebrew”s and the Book of Mormon had some rather startling similarities. Not only was there a familial link between the two (Poultney was but a few miles from the birthplace of Joseph Smith, and one of Smith's right-hand-men, Oliver Cowdery, attended Ethan Smith's church), but the subject matter of the two works had a number of points of contact. Then there is Josiah Priest's The Wonders of Nature and Providence, Displayed (1825), which also includes numerous parallels to the Book of Mormon, quotes extensively from Ethan Smith's book and is known to have been available in the local Manchester Rental Library when Joseph Smith lived in the village.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Thats my whole point, irrelevant similarities can be found in two books which have no relation. The fact that the BOM has more irrelevant similarities with blades of grass than it does with solomon spaulding is indicative of their being no relationship of the bOM to Spaulding or View of Hebrews. |
The BOM may have some of the same words at Whitman’s ‘Leaves of Grass’ because Whitman likewise wrote in English and used objects commonly occurring in life. That about all there is to it. As a poem, there is no plot and it doesn’t claim to be a historical record. You are missing the implications of the obvious.
The ideas of the BOM of Mormon were simply not original in 1830. There were a number of preexisting sources for these ideas available in the area from men who penned their work before JS ever wrote the BOM with the help of Cowdry.
Spaulding’s work was an abridged ‘history’ of extinct inhabitants of ancient America with a very similar outline as the BOM. Ethan’s Smith’s “View of the Hebrew”s and the Book of Mormon had some rather startling similarities. Not only was there a familial link between the two (Poultney was but a few miles from the birthplace of Joseph Smith, and one of Smith's right-hand-men, Oliver Cowdery, attended Ethan Smith's church), but the subject matter of the two works had a number of points of contact. Then there is Josiah Priest's The Wonders of Nature and Providence, Displayed (1825), which also includes numerous parallels to the Book of Mormon, quotes extensively from Ethan Smith's book and is known to have been available in the local Manchester Rental Library when Joseph Smith lived in the village.
Are you for real with that. That sounds like some cliche about how to prosylitize to mormons. And from what I've seen in your posts so far... it seems like most of your info is from cut and paste of critics of the church websites that are about a decade old in their research.
Unfortanately, I am sorry to say its gets less credible the deeper one digs.
The best sources are from people who were LDS themselves:
exmormon.org – “We are not affiliated with any religion”
http://www.newordermormon.org/
For a little history on the failed ohio bank:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH/painerep.htm#021538
http://www.lds-mormon.com/sr.shtml
Have a great couple of weeks as well. Thanks,
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.