russ@dadla-b.UUCP (08/09/83)
John, In coming up with a case against the Book of Mormon, the theory you raise needs to answer more questions than it raises. When you say there are "no pro-Mormon statements from reliable and informed who knew the Smith family intimately", it is a contradiction of terms. Those who actually knew the Smith family intimately joined with them and you will reject them if I present them as a source. Those who testify against them only will say that they knew about the Smith activities since they never implicate themselves as participating with them. They have been no witnesses found that were a part of Joseph's supposedly large groups of money diggers. I don't know why you say that Joseph and his mother disagree. In Joseph's most widely published history he tells of the same event that you mention from his mother. You quote from Professor Anthon's letter. He actually wrote two letters that discussed this visit. He was not consistent in both letters. But the question is what are the motives. Regardless of what actually transpired with Charles Anthon, Martin Harris was apparently satisfied enough after the visit to mortgage his farm to supply the money needed to publish the Book of Mormon. You are correct that no Book of Mormon site has been positively identified. But only a very small portion of the KNOWN sites in Central and South America have even been exavated. If you only knew that the Bible lands were somewhere in the Mediterranean area how long do you think it would take to locate Jerusalem? There is information that is showing that the Book of Mormon people are consistent with that area and no evidence has been found that would eliminate the possibility or discredit what the Book of Mormon says. This can lead to a whole series of articles. The the real question is -- How do you explain the many questions that your theory raises. 1. What was the motive for the hoax that you claim? You claim that Joseph was helped by others. Who? And why didn't they expose the hoax after they left the church? 2. How do you explain the Book of Mormon itself? Why would 11 other witnesses testify to its truthfulness and never deny that testimony even though some of them left the church? 3. How could Joseph have correctly described a journey south from Jerusalem with information that was not known to him at the time? How could he tell about the travels along an ancient trade route that was unknown in 1830? 4. Admittedly Joseph could dream up some name to put in the Book of Mormon, but why should they match Old World name patterns? Names like Lehi and Alma have only recently been found to be valid names. 5. Why should he include a style of writing that is not standard English but fits very well as Hebrew idioms as the origin of the Book of Mormon would require? 6. And I haven't even come to the strongest proofs of the Book of Mormon yet. Things like Chiasmus (a unique writing style), Stylemetry ( a computer author analysis technique), and many others; like yearly king festivals, patterns of battle, cave of Lehi, and other recent discoveries. Russell Anderson Tektronix P.S. I have changed computers, I can't send or receive mail from my previous location. I am now at: tekmdp!dadla!dadla-b!russ
andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (08/09/83)
OK, I'll jump in with both feet (those who know me would add, "in my
mouth"). I've been watching various Mormon debates for several years
now, and so present some discussion of dadla-b!russ's most recent
questions.
"1. What was the motive for the hoax that you claim? You claim
that Joseph was helped by others. Who? And why didn't they
expose the hoax after they left the church?"
If indeed it was a hoax, it was a most *profitable* hoax. Those who
joined in propagating the hoax stood to gain by staying with it despite
any diminishment of belief. Becoming an elder statemsman in a large
church can be a very pleasant experience, as many Scientologists can
attest.
"2. How do you explain the Book of Mormon itself? Why would 11
other witnesses testify to its truthfulness and never deny that
testimony even though some of them left the church?"
Those who stayed with the church might testify to its truthfulness even
in the absence of conviction, again to "propagate the hoax". It is not
at all true that those who left the church did not deny their testimony.
I think the fact that major portions of the Book appear to have been
plagiarized from popular novels of that era speaks for itself.
"3. How could Joseph have correctly described a journey south
from Jerusalem with information that was not known to him at
the time? How could he tell about the travels along an ancient
trade route that was unknown in 1830?"
This looks to me like a good case of selective proof, in which you pick
out one element of the Book which was later proved correct and hold it
up as example. Those elements which did not pan out become
"metaphors".
"4. Admittedly Joseph could dream up some name to put in the
Book of Mormon, but why should they match Old World name
patterns? Names like Lehi and Alma have only recently been
found to be valid names.
5. Why should he include a style of writing that is not
standard English but fits very well as Hebrew idioms as the
origin of the Book of Mormon would require?"
Both the naming convention and the writing style can be explained as
inspired by the King James Bible.
"6. And I haven't even come to the strongest proofs of the Book
of Mormon yet. Things like Chiasmus (a unique writing style),
Stylemetry ( a computer author analysis technique), and many
others; like yearly king festivals, patterns of battle, cave of
Lehi, and other recent discoveries."
Stylistic investigation is not universally accepted. (More bluntly,
many people believe it to be so much swamp water, right up there with
dousing and astrology.) Dunno about the other items.
Flame away, it's cold in here!
-- Andrew Klossner (decvax!teklabs!tekecs!andrew) [UUCP]
(andrew.tektronix@rand-relay) [ARPA]