Evidence that there's no way J. Smith made up the BOM

Printable View

10-10-2013, 12:03 AM
nrajeffreturns

Evidence that there's no way J. Smith made up the BOM

The reasons why there's no way J. Smith COULD have made up the BOM are many, but one reason is that some of the supporting evidence wasn't known by any human being in 1829--not even Joseph Smith. In order to fully comprehend the importance of the claims this article makes, a certain level of critical thinking skills will be required. For those who are willing to read and try to get a grasp of what this article shows, here it is:

http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/20...em-i-hope.html

A few sentences from it:

"Of particular interest is a correlation Sorenson made decades ago, but which now seems more powerfully confirmed than before. I am talking about Lake A***lan as the waters of Mormon (G on the maps above). I have mentioned before how since Sorenson made this identification, and supposed that the Lamanite city Jerusalem had sunk into these waters at the time of Christ, a submerged city was discovered decades later in about the right area. ...The site contains a pyramid and at least 10 monuments (altars and uncarved stelae). The stelae are of the same type as those found at highland sites that date to the Middle and Late Pre-Cl***ic periods (600 BC–AD 200). In their discussion of the remains, Medrano and Samayoa conclude that “because of the intact state of the [ruins at Samabaj] . . . , it is inferred that the level of the water rose suddenly, submerging the island [to which the site is confined] some 2,000 years ago.”... the correspondences between Mormon’s text and the geography of Mesoamerica go far beyond coincidence...“The consistency cannot be accounted for in terms of Joseph Smith, for his translation of the volume was dictated at such a pace and published with so little revision of content that he could not have accurately crafted the picture of spatial relations involved in the complex story.

Most readers today, even those who read the text slowly and study it carefully, often struggle to keep the geographic details straight or to visualize the spatial relationships of the various lands, cities, and waterways. Joseph Smith’s own remarks on Book of Mormon geography manifest that he was as confused as we are when we read the book. John E. Clark remarks, “it is becoming clear that Joseph Smith did not fully understand the geography, scope, historical scale, literary form, or cultural content of the book.” And why should he? He was a farm boy with a gift and mission from God, not a scholar of American (or Israeli) antiquities. Yet the book accurately describes matters such as geography, history, and culture, as Sorenson’s Mormon Codex makes evident."
10-10-2013, 08:38 AM
James Banta

Quote:

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

The reasons why there's no way J. Smith COULD have made up the BOM are many, but one reason is that some of the supporting evidence wasn't known by any human being in 1829--not even Joseph Smith. In order to fully comprehend the importance of the claims this article makes, a certain level of critical thinking skills will be required. For those who are willing to read and try to get a grasp of what this article shows, here it is:

http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/20...em-i-hope.html

A few sentences from it:

"Of particular interest is a correlation Sorenson made decades ago, but which now seems more powerfully confirmed than before. I am talking about Lake A***lan as the waters of Mormon (G on the maps above). I have mentioned before how since Sorenson made this identification, and supposed that the Lamanite city Jerusalem had sunk into these waters at the time of Christ, a submerged city was discovered decades later in about the right area. ...The site contains a pyramid and at least 10 monuments (altars and uncarved stelae). The stelae are of the same type as those found at highland sites that date to the Middle and Late Pre-Cl***ic periods (600 BC–AD 200). In their discussion of the remains, Medrano and Samayoa conclude that “because of the intact state of the [ruins at Samabaj] . . . , it is inferred that the level of the water rose suddenly, submerging the island [to which the site is confined] some 2,000 years ago.”... the correspondences between Mormon’s text and the geography of Mesoamerica go far beyond coincidence...“The consistency cannot be accounted for in terms of Joseph Smith, for his translation of the volume was dictated at such a pace and published with so little revision of content that he could not have accurately crafted the picture of spatial relations involved in the complex story.

Most readers today, even those who read the text slowly and study it carefully, often struggle to keep the geographic details straight or to visualize the spatial relationships of the various lands, cities, and waterways. Joseph Smith’s own remarks on Book of Mormon geography manifest that he was as confused as we are when we read the book. John E. Clark remarks, “it is becoming clear that Joseph Smith did not fully understand the geography, scope, historical scale, literary form, or cultural content of the book.” And why should he? He was a farm boy with a gift and mission from God, not a scholar of American (or Israeli) antiquities. Yet the book accurately describes matters such as geography, history, and culture, as Sorenson’s Mormon Codex makes evident."

There seems to be a lot of inconsistency in BofM Geography.. Seems any isthmus will do in the minds of the LDS people to be seen as a possible location for the Lands of the BofM. The BofM identifies the land as being in the middle of surrounding seas.

And it came to p*** that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east. (Helaman 3:8)

Your Theory doesn't account for this description The North American theory does. You can find the map at (bookofmormonpromisedland.com). So how is it that there can be two different theories of the geography of the BofM, both with reasonable explanations of why their location is correct? The answer is simple.. There is no BofM Geography, No BofM anthropology, No BofM history.. It was all created by Smith as a product of the myths of the mound builders. It was long held, long before Smith that the American Indians were the remnant of the lost ten tribes.

In 1649 Men***ah published his book, The Hope of Israel, in Spanish and in Latin in Amsterdam, including Montezinos' report of the Lost Tribes in the New World. An English translation was published in London in 1650. In it Men***eh argued, and for the first time tried to give scholarly support in European thought and printing, to the theory that the native inhabitants of America at the time of the European discovery were descendants of the [lost] Ten Tribes of Israel. (Méchoulan, Henry, and Nahon, Gérard (eds.), Men***eh Ben Israel. The Hope of Israel, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987 - ISBN 0-19-710054-6, p. 101, Wilensky M. (1951). "The Royalist Position concerning the Readmission of Jews to England", The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 397–409).

Smith was said, by his mother, to spin tales of the peoples of the Americas, their religion, and way of living that held the family spellbound (Lucy Smith, Biographical Sketches, p. 85.).

Ok looking at the BofM does it match up with what we know about the very first Americans. That the first peoples to colonized the Americas, according to the most recent research, indicates that the initial settlement of the continent was begun by Southeast Asians who occupied Australia 60,000 years ago and then expanded into the Americas about 13,500 years ago. Next was the Mongoloid people arriving from northeast Asia about 12,000 years ago (nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0903_030903_bajaskull.html). None of these people were Hebrew nor had any knowledge of YHWH. The lack of any archeological evidence to support the BofM and science telling us a reasonable story of their first existence on this continent puts the BofM is a very poor light as being a true account of the immigration to this continent.. IHS jim
10-10-2013, 08:47 AM
RealFakeHair

Quote:

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

The reasons why there's no way J. Smith COULD have made up the BOM are many, but one reason is that some of the supporting evidence wasn't known by any human being in 1829--not even Joseph Smith. In order to fully comprehend the importance of the claims this article makes, a certain level of critical thinking skills will be required. For those who are willing to read and try to get a grasp of what this article shows, here it is:

http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/20...em-i-hope.html

A few sentences from it:

"Of particular interest is a correlation Sorenson made decades ago, but which now seems more powerfully confirmed than before. I am talking about Lake A***lan as the waters of Mormon (G on the maps above). I have mentioned before how since Sorenson made this identification, and supposed that the Lamanite city Jerusalem had sunk into these waters at the time of Christ, a submerged city was discovered decades later in about the right area. ...The site contains a pyramid and at least 10 monuments (altars and uncarved stelae). The stelae are of the same type as those found at highland sites that date to the Middle and Late Pre-Cl***ic periods (600 BC–AD 200). In their discussion of the remains, Medrano and Samayoa conclude that “because of the intact state of the [ruins at Samabaj] . . . , it is inferred that the level of the water rose suddenly, submerging the island [to which the site is confined] some 2,000 years ago.”... the correspondences between Mormon’s text and the geography of Mesoamerica go far beyond coincidence...“The consistency cannot be accounted for in terms of Joseph Smith, for his translation of the volume was dictated at such a pace and published with so little revision of content that he could not have accurately crafted the picture of spatial relations involved in the complex story.

Most readers today, even those who read the text slowly and study it carefully, often struggle to keep the geographic details straight or to visualize the spatial relationships of the various lands, cities, and waterways. Joseph Smith’s own remarks on Book of Mormon geography manifest that he was as confused as we are when we read the book. John E. Clark remarks, “it is becoming clear that Joseph Smith did not fully understand the geography, scope, historical scale, literary form, or cultural content of the book.” And why should he? He was a farm boy with a gift and mission from God, not a scholar of American (or Israeli) antiquities. Yet the book accurately describes matters such as geography, history, and culture, as Sorenson’s Mormon Codex makes evident."

You have got to be kidding me, you guys can't even figure out where the real Hill Cumorah is mentioned in the Book of Mormon. This is such BS!. Yes, Joseph Smith jr. could have contributed to the writing of the Book of Mormon. Remember the Book of Mormon was written in the way a person of his education would have dictated or equally contributed to the BooK. Look again at the map of Central America, not one piece of evidence has ever been found to hint of a possibility it might be linked to the Book of Mormon.
Let me just ask this one question, when the Jews left Egyptian under Moses, how many pyramids did the Jews build in Land of Israel?
10-10-2013, 09:15 AM
MacG

Quote:

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

The reasons why there's no way J. Smith COULD have made up the BOM are many, but one reason is that some of the supporting evidence wasn't known by any human being in 1829--not even Joseph Smith. In order to fully comprehend the importance of the claims this article makes, a certain level of critical thinking skills will be required. For those who are willing to read and try to get a grasp of what this article shows, here it is:

http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/20...em-i-hope.html

A few sentences from it:

"Of particular interest is a correlation Sorenson made decades ago, but which now seems more powerfully confirmed than before. I am talking about Lake A***lan as the waters of Mormon (G on the maps above). I have mentioned before how since Sorenson made this identification, and supposed that the Lamanite city Jerusalem had sunk into these waters at the time of Christ, a submerged city was discovered decades later in about the right area. ...The site contains a pyramid and at least 10 monuments (altars and uncarved stelae). The stelae are of the same type as those found at highland sites that date to the Middle and Late Pre-Cl***ic periods (600 BC–AD 200). In their discussion of the remains, Medrano and Samayoa conclude that “because of the intact state of the [ruins at Samabaj] . . . , it is inferred that the level of the water rose suddenly, submerging the island [to which the site is confined] some 2,000 years ago.”... the correspondences between Mormon’s text and the geography of Mesoamerica go far beyond coincidence...“The consistency cannot be accounted for in terms of Joseph Smith, for his translation of the volume was dictated at such a pace and published with so little revision of content that he could not have accurately crafted the picture of spatial relations involved in the complex story.

Most readers today, even those who read the text slowly and study it carefully, often struggle to keep the geographic details straight or to visualize the spatial relationships of the various lands, cities, and waterways. Joseph Smith’s own remarks on Book of Mormon geography manifest that he was as confused as we are when we read the book. John E. Clark remarks, “it is becoming clear that Joseph Smith did not fully understand the geography, scope, historical scale, literary form, or cultural content of the book.” And why should he? He was a farm boy with a gift and mission from God, not a scholar of American (or Israeli) antiquities. Yet the book accurately describes matters such as geography, history, and culture, as Sorenson’s Mormon Codex makes evident."

What would be most troubling to me is that an Angel gave the record of there being but one God who is Spirit but JS and Brigham Young went on to teach otherwise.

I'll spend more time on the posted apologetic later when I can have some focused time.
10-10-2013, 09:21 AM
RealFakeHair

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacG

What would be most troubling to me is that an Angel gave the record of there being but one God who is Spirit but JS and Brigham Young went on to teach otherwise.

I'll spend more time on the posted apologetic later when I can have some focused time.

It also troubles me, but I understand why Joseph Smith jr and his co-horts began changing the teaching of Christianity. After all why bring in something new if it doesn't seem different?