more mormon heresy

[Sargon]

So we can say without doubt that Smith's personal experience provided him with abundant sources for personal and place names for the Book of Mormon, and that of the place names a significant number of them are depicted as in the same place as their New England sources.

As I mentioned above, you have no evidence whatsoever that Smith's personal experience allowed him to even be aware of all the places on your map.
As for the point you make that a significant number of them are depicted as in the same place as their New England sources, this conclusion is entirely wrong. One source I consulted said that there are 337 proper names in the Book of Mormon. Mr. Holley provides a mere 15 as evidence that Joseph Smith simply took from his surroundings. Of those 15, only 10 are compatible with the geographical descriptions found in the Book of Mormon. That would make 10 out of 337 that Joseph could possibly taken from his surroundings, assuming he even was aware of their existence.
That is about 3% of all the names in the Book of Mormon. Would you still like to use this as an argument against the Book of Mormon??

Sargon

[Fortigurn]

So we can say without doubt that Smith's personal experience provided him with abundant sources for personal and place names for the Book of Mormon, and that of the place names a significant number of them are depicted as in the same place as their New England sources.

As I mentioned above, you have no evidence whatsoever that Smith's personal experience allowed him to even be aware of all the places on your map.

I gave you a link (several times).

As for the point you make that a significant number of them are depicted as in the same place as their New England sources, this conclusion is entirely wrong. One source I consulted said that there are 337 proper names in the Book of Mormon. Mr. Holley provides a mere 15 as evidence that Joseph Smith simply took from his surroundings. Of those 15, only 10 are compatible with the geographical descriptions found in the Book of Mormon.

Another member here (I think it was Gman), successfully refuted that argument.

That would make 10 out of 337 that Joseph could possibly taken from his surroundings, assuming he even was aware of their existence.
That is about 3% of all the names in the Book of Mormon. Would you still like to use this as an argument against the Book of Mormon??

I certainly would. Firstly because it's more thatn 3%, and secondly because (as I showed you repeatedly), there's a huge list of other place names and personal names which Smith clearly borrowed straight from the Bible.

The fact is that whilst Mormons claim that Smith could never have devised these names from his own imagination, and that their 'Hebraic' character proves that they are original and not taken from anything in his experience, there is abundant evidence to prove that there was plenty in Smith's personal experience to provide him with ample source material for these names.

[Sargon]

As I mentioned above, you have no evidence whatsoever that Smith's personal experience allowed him to even be aware of all the places on your map.


I gave you a link (several times).

I don't recall you ever showing me anything that proves that Joseph had a knowledge of the places on Mr. Holley's map. By demonstrating that a few places in the New England region have names that sound something BoM names, does not prove anything. It does not rule out mere coincidence. And as I have demonstrated, only approximately 3% of the names can be suggested to have come from his surroundings, not a very compelling argument.

Quote:
As for the point you make that a significant number of them are depicted as in the same place as their New England sources, this conclusion is entirely wrong. One source I consulted said that there are 337 proper names in the Book of Mormon. Mr. Holley provides a mere 15 as evidence that Joseph Smith simply took from his surroundings. Of those 15, only 10 are compatible with the geographical descriptions found in the Book of Mormon.


Another member here (I think it was Gman), successfully refuted that argument.

Actually, Gman questioned my assertion that the BoM proves many of the places on Holley's map to be geographically incorrect. I then posted a lengthy post demostrating that indeed it does, and that Gman just hadn't understood at first. Gman has yet to reply to that. I challenge you analyze what I have posted and prepare a rebuttal if you can.

I certainly would. Firstly because it's more thatn 3%, and secondly because (as I showed you repeatedly), there's a huge list of other place names and personal names which Smith clearly borrowed straight from the Bible.

And it's more than 3% because...you said so?? Even the errors in Holley's map were not present, and all of the cities were accurately placed, it would only represent about 4% of all the names in the BoM.
As to the "huge other list" of place names and personal names that Smith "clearly borrowed straight from the bible", you have yet to prove that he in fact did so. You have suggested your theory, but shown no proof for it. I have suggested an alternate theory, that actually has evidence.

The fact is that whilst Mormons claim that Smith could never have devised these names from his own imagination, and that their 'Hebraic' character proves that they are original and not taken from anything in his experience, there is abundant evidence to prove that there was plenty in Smith's personal experience to provide him with ample source material for these names.

Could you provide me with a statement from a recognized Mormon apologist claiming such?? I bet if you dig enough you might find one, and your proposal that we claim such would hold much more credibility if you could.

This is the third time that you have claimed that there exists a possibility that Joseph took these names from sources other than the BoM, and it is the third time that I have agreed with you. It is possible. I can't rule that out. But you have shown no evidence for it, while I have shown evidence in the contrary.
I have shown that Joseph had no other materials with him while translating the BoM except for the plates, his hat, and a seerstone. Multiple witnesses testified to this. What evidence have you that he had a bible open next to him and was simply taking names out of it while simultaneously dictating the story from his head? Its like claiming aliens built the pyramids without having any evidence for it.

Sargon

[Fortigurn]

As I mentioned above, you have no evidence whatsoever that Smith's personal experience allowed him to even be aware of all the places on your map.


I gave you a link (several times).

I don't recall you ever showing me anything that proves that Joseph had a knowledge of the places on Mr. Holley's map.

Then I suggest you read my posts.

By demonstrating that a few places in the New England region have names that sound something BoM names, does not prove anything. It does not rule out mere coincidence.

It is not mere coincidence when exactly the same place names are used, or place names differing by only a letter or two, and they are even in the same place as they are in the local surroundings.

And as I have demonstrated, only approximately 3% of the names can be suggested to have come from his surroundings, not a very compelling argument.

No you didn't prove that. And as I pointed out, a large number of them can be proved to have been taken from the Bible as well.

Actually, Gman questioned my assertion that the BoM proves many of the places on Holley's map to be geographically incorrect. I then posted a lengthy post demostrating that indeed it does, and that Gman just hadn't understood at first. Gman has yet to reply to that. I challenge you analyze what I have posted and prepare a rebuttal if you can.

Give me a link.

And it's more than 3% because...you said so??

No, it's simply a fact.

Even the errors in Holley's map were not present, and all of the cities were accurately placed, it would only represent about 4% of all the names in the BoM.

So what? You keep missing the point. Your claim was that these place names could not have come from any source other than the Book of Mormon. That is clearly incorrect.

As to the "huge other list" of place names and personal names that Smith "clearly borrowed straight from the bible", you have yet to prove that he in fact did so. You have suggested your theory, but shown no proof for it.

My 'theory' was that there was a more obvious source for these names than the Bok of Mormon. My 'theory' rests on the fact that there is clear evidence that these place names were available in the local surroundings, and in the Bible in use in Smith's time (and sold in his local area), and the proof I have is that so many of the names he used match completely (or nearly completely), with the names in the local area or in that Bible.

It is clear that there were sources available to him outside the Book of Mormon, from which these names could have been taken. You cannot deny that.

I have suggested an alternate theory, that actually has evidence.

Your theory has no evidence, because you cannot produce the text from which he allegedly 'translated' these names (only he didn't really translate them, he just transliterated them).

Could you provide me with a statement from a recognized Mormon apologist claiming such?? I bet if you dig enough you might find one, and your proposal that we claim such would hold much more credibility if you could.

Sure, give me a while and I'll find one for you.

[quoite]This is the third time that you have claimed that there exists a possibility that Joseph took these names from sources other than the BoM, and it is the third time that I have agreed with you. It is possible. I can't rule that out. But you have shown no evidence for it, while I have shown evidence in the contrary.[/quote]

Your theory has no evidence, because you cannot produce the text from which he allegedly 'translated' these names (only he didn't really translate them, he just transliterated them). I can show that there were available sources which had these names and names very similar to them.

I have shown that Joseph had no other materials with him while translating the BoM except for the plates, his hat, and a seerstone. Multiple witnesses testified to this.

No you haven't shown this. You have simply claimed it, on the basis of witnesses who were far from independent sources. If you could provide independnt witnesses, you would have a stronger case.

What evidence have you that he had a bible open next to him and was simply taking names out of it while simultaneously dictating the story from his head? Its like claiming aliens built the pyramids without having any evidence for it.

No it isn't. I am claiming that it is more credible than that he took them from the 'golden plates'. I am claming it is more credible, because we know that he had access to the Bible used in his day, and so many of the names (and even entire verses, complete with translation errors), appear in the Book of Mormon which appear in that Bible.

On the other hand, you claim he translated them from 'golden plates', the existence of which you cannot prove at all.

[Sargon]

Fortigurn,

I hope that we are not going round and round here. Hopefully we can be clear to each other and read each other's posts thoroughly.

You have demonstrated that Joseph could have taken about 4% of the names in the Book of Mormon from his surroundings. You have not proven that he did.

You have demonstrated that Joseph could have taken the names in the Book of Mormon from the Bible.
I'm not sure if you consider IRR(a very anti-mormon organization) as an independant source or not, but they have a page with a list of testimonies from people who witnessed the translation process. All of these testimonies agree that Joseph had nothing with him except the plates, the hat, and the seerstone. No bible is ever mentioned, and some of them are clear that he had no other materials with him except those mentioned. You want a link? Here:
http://www.irr.org/MIT/divination.html

This is my evidence against your theory that Joseph used a bible. So in order for you make a case you would have to find a way around these testimonies, like maybe claiming that all of them were simply lieing including Issac Hale who was opposed to Joseph's religion. Or claiming that Joseph memorized all 337 names before beginning the dictation.


It also my evidence for my theory that Joseph really did translate from actual gold plates. What more evidence is necessary than eye witness testimonies? There were many who saw the plates, and never denied their reality throughout their lives. You demanding to see the plates is like demanding to see the original manuscripts of the bible in order to believe.

I don't recall you ever showing me anything that proves that Joseph had a knowledge of the places on Mr. Holley's map.


Then I suggest you read my posts.

After searching your posts I was unable to find anything of the sort. Can you back up your words or are you sending me on a wild goose hunt??

Quote:
And as I have demonstrated, only approximately 3% of the names can be suggested to have come from his surroundings, not a very compelling argument.


No you didn't prove that.

Prove me wrong. Use the Book of Mormon to prove to me that I was wrong in saying that 5 of the 15 places on Holley's map were not accurate reflections of geographical descriptions in the Book of Mormon. I have proven it using the BoM, now it's your turn. You don't need a link to find it, just scroll down a bit.

Quote:
And it's more than 3% because...you said so??


No, it's simply a fact.

Again, why is it a fact? You have done nothing to support your "fact" that more than 3% of the names in the BoM had corresponding sites in 1829 New England territory.

Your claim was that these place names could not have come from any source other than the Book of Mormon. That is clearly incorrect.

As I said before, I do not recall having ever claimed this. If this is indeed true I stand corrected, but unless you can show me where I said this to you I encourage you to stop creating straw man arguments.

The existence of the plates is an ongoing debate, but you have not shown any evidence that they didn't exist, while I have shown evidence that they did.

Sargon

[Fortigurn]

You have demonstrated that Joseph could have taken about 4% of the names in the Book of Mormon from his surroundings. You have not proven that he did.

You have demonstrated that Joseph could have taken the names in the Book of Mormon from the Bible.

I only need to prove that he could have done so, in order to make my case, which is that it is more credible that this happened than that he translated them from 'golden plates'. My proposed source for Smith's names actually exists. There is no evidence that your proposed source exists.

I'm not sure if you consider IRR(a very anti-mormon organization) as an independant source or not, but they have a page with a list of testimonies from people who witnessed the translation process. All of these testimonies agree that Joseph had nothing with him except the plates, the hat, and the seerstone. No bible is ever mentioned, and some of them are clear that he had no other materials with him except those mentioned. You want a link? Here:
http://www.irr.org/MIT/divination.html

Yes, I'm aware of that list. I'm aware of the testimonies. But the fact that they're on that site doesn't mean that they're true. Do the people who run that site believe those testimonies are true?

Did you actually read that page? It's hardly supportive of your view. It's actually debunking your view:

The eyewitnesses to the dictation of the Book of Mormon
describe a different scenario than the one depicted by the LDS Church

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has published many pictures of Joseph Smith dictating the Book of Mormon. These depictions invariably show Joseph seated at a table, carefully examining the gold plates which are in front of him on the table.1 The impression given is that the dictation process involved Joseph's direct visual contact with the plates.

However, this scenario does not square with the testimony of those who were eyewitnesses to Joseph Smith dictating the Book of Mormon. These witnesses include all three of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon (the same individuals whose testimony appears in the front of every copy of the Book of Mormon), as well as Joseph Smith's wife, Emma Hale Smith.

They tell a similar story of Joseph dropping a magical seer stone into his hat, then burying his face in the hat and proceeding to dictate the Book of Mormon. Joseph claimed to see in the darkened hat the words he dictated.

Several of the witnesses comment that the gold plates were sometimes not even in sight as Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon.

Emma Hale Smith:

In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.

No plates.

David Whitmer:

I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear.

[...]

I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation

No plates.

Martin Harris:

Martin Harris related an incident that occured during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.

No plates.

Oliver Cowdrey:

These were days never to be forgotten — to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated, with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, 'Interpreters,' the history, or record, called 'The book of Mormon

No plates.

Isaac Hale:

The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with a stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods.

No plates.

Michael Morse:

When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes — Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down.

No plates.

Joseph Knight Senior:

Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and darkened his eyes then he would take a sentance and it would appear in brite roman letters then he would tell the writer and he would write it then that would go away the next sentence would come and so on. But if it was not spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated.

No plates.

This is my evidence against your theory that Joseph used a bible. So in order for you make a case you would have to find a way around these testimonies, like maybe claiming that all of them were simply lieing including Issac Hale who was opposed to Joseph's religion. Or claiming that Joseph memorized all 337 names before beginning the dictation.

As you can see, these testimonies are entirely supportive of my case, and destructive to yours. None of them mention the presence of the plates during the process of translation. Several of them explicitly state that the plates were not present in the process of translation.

You demanding to see the plates is like demanding to see the original manuscripts of the bible in order to believe.

No, not at all. It's not reasonable to ask for the original manuscripts of the Bible, because they don't exist any more. It is reasonable to ask for the golden plates, because they still exist.

After searching your posts I was unable to find anything of the sort. Can you back up your words or are you sending me on a wild goose hunt??

The links I provided.

Prove me wrong. Use the Book of Mormon to prove to me that I was wrong in saying that 5 of the 15 places on Holley's map were not accurate reflections of geographical descriptions in the Book of Mormon. I have proven it using the BoM, now it's your turn. You don't need a link to find it, just scroll down a bit.

I'm sorry, but I found Gman's presentation more convincing than your attempted rebuttal.

Again, why is it a fact? You have done nothing to support your "fact" that more than 3% of the names in the BoM had corresponding sites in 1829 New England territory.

I gave you a list.

The existence of the plates is an ongoing debate, but you have not shown any evidence that they didn't exist, while I have shown evidence that they did.

The onus is not on me to prove that they didn't exist, the onus is on you to prove that they do.

[Gman]

Actually, Gman questioned my assertion that the BoM proves many of the places on Holley's map to be geographically incorrect. I then posted a lengthy post demostrating that indeed it does, and that Gman just hadn't understood at first. Gman has yet to reply to that. I challenge you analyze what I have posted and prepare a rebuttal if you can.

The Gman hath returneth... And I must say your rebuttal to the map is very easy to dismiss... Also why are you posting again on this issue? Wasn't the first rebuttal from FARMS sufficient? //farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=10

Though we may not agree on varying points of theology, one thing we do agree on is that Christ is the Lord, and celebrating his birth gives us a chance to remember that we at least agree on some things.

Also please stop saying that you believe in Christ is the Lord. Mormonism is NOT a Christian faith... It is very much opposed to Christianity. Mormonism is actually closer to Islam than Christianity..

Angola is north of Zarahemla:

Mormon 1:5-6
5 And I, Mormon, being a descendant of Nephi, (and my father's name was Mormon) I remembered the things which Ammaron commanded me.
6 And it came to pass that I, being eleven years old, was carried by my father into the land southward, even to the land of Zarahemla.

What?? These verses don't even talk about Angola...

Zarahemla is definitely in the land southward.

That is correct... This is EXACTLY what the map says. Thanks for supporting the map...

Mormon 2:3-4
3 And it came to pass that in the three hundred and twenty and seventh year the Lamanites did come upon us with exceedingly great power, insomuch that they did frighten my armies; therefore they would not fight, and they began to retreat towards the north countries.
4 And it came to pass that we did come to the city of Angola, and we did take possession of the city, and make preparations to defend ourselves against the Lamanites. And it came to pass that we did fortify the city with our might; but notwithstanding all our fortifications the Lamanites did come upon us and did drive us out of the city.

Angola is located in the north countries, being north of the south countries, where Zarehemla was located.

No Sargon... Read again what your scripture says... It says "and they began to retreat towards the north countries." This means that they WERE NOT in the northern lands yet... On the way to the "land northward" they ran into the make believe city called "Angola" in the land southward.

Look at the map for yourself if you don't believe me..

Jacobugath is located north of Zarahemla:

3 Nephi 7:12
12 Therefore, Jacob seeing that their enemies were more numerous than they, he being the king of the band, therefore he commanded his people that they should take their flight into the northernmost part of the land, and there build up unto themselves a kingdom, until they were joined by dissenters, (for he flattered them that there would be many dissenters) and they become sufficiently strong to contend with the tribes of the people; and they did so.

Jacob, being the king of this group, led them into the northernmost part of the land.

Mormon 9:9
9 And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was they that did destroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them.

Jacobugath was the name of the city of the king Jacob. It was located in the northernmost part of the land. Definitely north of Zarahemla.

What? Where do these verses confirm that Jacobugath is definitely north of Zarahemla? It doesn't even mention Zarahemla in any of your verses.. Also I see no correlation between 3 Nephi 7:12 and Mormon 9:9... This Jacob guy probably led his people to the "into the northernmost part of the land" not the land northward. It's the northernmost part of the land of the "Land Southward."

Alma is north of Lehi-Nephi:

A man named Zeniff, a Nephite, left the land of Zarahemla to dwell among the land of the Lamanites. The Lamanites dwelled in the Land of Nephi, located south of Zarehemla. To show this would not be too difficult, but it is attested to more easily by the map in question.

Sargon, again... Are you actually looking at the map while you make your statements? The map clearly shows that the Land of Nephi is south of Zarahemla.. I'm sorry to remind you that we are defending the map and that you are trying to show us how that the map is wrong...

The king of the Lamanites allowed Zeniff and his people to establish themselves in a region called the Land of Lehi-Nephi. (Mosiah 9:1-6)
After a generation the people of Zeniff became wicked under the wicked king Noah, the son of Zeniff. Alma, a priest of King Noah, was converted to the gospel by the prophet Abinadi. Alma began to preach and baptize near the waters of Mormon, hidden from the knowledge of the King. (Mosiah 18:30-34)
After King Noah discovered them there, they fled north into the wilderness, eventually reaching the land of Zarahemla.
After fleeing for eight days they settled and called their settlement Helam. (Mosiah 23:1-5, 19)

Again, Sargon... This is quite painful to watch you impale yourself with your own words... The map clearly shows that the Land of Lehi-Nephi is SOUTH of the land of Zarahemla... Please, I beg you to look at the map again..

They were discovered by the Lamanites, who placed some of the wicked renegade priests, led by Amulon, of the now deceased King Noah as rulers over them. (Mosiah 23:39)
The righteous people of Helam sought to flee from their wicked masters. They fled in the night to a place they named Alma. (Mosiah 24:18-20)
They then departed from the valley of Alma, and after a 12 day journey arrived in Zarahemla. (Mosiah 24:24-25)

This people fled from the land of Lehi-Nephi in the south eventually arriving in Zarahemla in the north. Along the way they stopped at a place they called Alma. Since they were traveling from the south to the north, Alma was north of Lehi-Nephi.

Zarahemla bordered the Land of Lehi-Nephi
As shown above, the waters of Mormon were located in the land of Lehi-Nephi, in the territory of the Lamanites.

It is according to the map, in the same "Land Southward." Again, are you really looking at the map?

Alma 21:1
1 NOW when Ammon and his brethren separated themselves in the borders of the land of the Lamanites, behold Aaron took his journey towards the land which was called by the Lamanites, Jerusalem, calling it after the land of their fathers' nativity; and it was away joining the borders of Mormon.

Jerusalem should be near or in the Land of Lehi-Nephi.

Again, according to the map, it is in the same "Land Southward" as Lehi-Nephi..

Morianton is in the land southward
The people of the land of Morianton sought to flee into the land northward, and the path they took was via the narrow neck of land.

Alma 50:29,33-34
29 Therefore, Morianton put it into their hearts that they should flee to the land which was northward, which was covered with large bodies of water, and take possession of the land which was northward.

33 Therefore Moroni sent an army, with their camp, to head the people of Morianton, to stop their flight into the land northward.
34 And it came to pass that they did not head them until they had come to the borders of the land Desolation; and there they did head them, by the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward, yea, by the sea, on the west and on the east.

Therefore Morianton was located in the land southward. This is contrary to the map created by Holley.

Good grief Sargon, again please review the map. If you drew a line from the northern most part of the "Land Southward" it actually puts Morianton in the southern boundary...

Ramah/Cumorah in Canada?It is also interesting to note that Mr. Holley proposes that the hill Ramah/Cumorah is in Canada, when Cumorah is insisted by the anti-mormon world at large to be located in New York.

Hmmm, but earlier you were saying that there were two hills of cumorah?

How many?Mr. Holley's map includes a number of cities, lands, and rivers that do not have corresponding locations on it's opposite map. This might be an attempt to make it appear worse than it really is, or it may be just that he thought we would enjoy a lesson in New England geography.
The place-names that have corresponding locations on both maps include:

Jacobugath/Jacobsburg
Jerusalem/Jerusalem
Valley of Alma/Alma
Shilom/Shiloh
Kishkumen/Kishkiminetas Junction
Lehi-Nephi/Lehigh County
Onidah/Oneida Castle
Angola/Angola
Morianton/Moravianton
Teancum/Tecumsah
Ramah/Rama
Moron/Morin
Ogath/Agathe
Ephraim/Ephraim
Shurr/Sherbrooke

Quote (see source below): "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.

Conclusion
While Holley's map is interesting, it is far from being an accurate reflection of the Book of Mormon lands. Of the 15 place names proposed to have been taken straight from the New England map, 5 of them are in the wrong place according to the Book of Mormon. That is 1/3, or 33%. Certainly that qualifies as “many”. And these are not the only problems with Holley's map, others not so obvious exist. But these suffice to show that Holley's map is not an honest portrayal of the Book of Mormon lands."

At the least we should remember that correlation is not causality.

Sincerely,

Sargon

No... It's Spaulding's map not Holley's. Holley is simply comparing parallels between the Book of Mormon and the existing Spaulding manuscript. The following are his documented conclusions, with which the author concurs after a personal analysis of Manuscript Found...

1. The outlines of the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding text are "essentially the same."

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."

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)

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.

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)

Source: //yourgoingtohell.com/mormon.html (sorry for the url title)

[Sargon]

I will have to deal with Gman's rebuttal of my post later. Today is my wife's birthday and I just don't have time to get to it. But it will suffice for now to say that you are dead wrong. Have patience.

Fortigurn,
I indeed did read the page that I posted a link to. I recognized that it was an anti-mormon site, and I even mentioned that to you. I knew they would not support the position that that plates were real. I posted it for a different reason which you have conciously ignored. NONE of the accounts mentions a bible at all. This completely debunks your theory. It is impossible for Joseph Smith to have taken those names from the bible if he did not have a bible with him, or a list with names from the bible to use. This is a fact that you have repeatedly ignored, because you can't deal with it. There was no bible present in any of the accounts, and your theory rests on the assumption that he used a bible. Therefore, your theory is completely false. Try another one.

As to the accounts not mentioning the plates as being present, this poses no problem for me. There are many other accounts of the plates actually existing, and those who saw them never denied this testimony until their dieing day. This is not a fact you can simply dismiss. I could post a link providing those testimonies, but you would probably complain that it is not an objective source. An easy way out.

No, not at all. It's not reasonable to ask for the original manuscripts of the Bible, because they don't exist any more. It is reasonable to ask for the golden plates, because they still exist.

It is not reasonable to ask for the plates, because they are no longer on earth.

Quote:
After searching your posts I was unable to find anything of the sort. Can you back up your words or are you sending me on a wild goose hunt??


The links I provided.

Again, you are avoiding the challenge because you cannot do it. I will continue to push you until you either show me proof that Joseph had a knowledge of all the places on Holley's map, or until you confess to not being able to prove it.

Sargon

[Gman]

I will have to deal with Gman's rebuttal of my post later. Today is my wife's birthday and I just don't have time to get to it. But it will suffice for now to say that you are dead wrong. Have patience.

Ok, you got it...

Again, you are avoiding the challenge because you cannot do it. I will continue to push you until you either show me proof that Joseph had a knowledge of all the places on Holley's map, or until you confess to not being able to prove it.

Sargon

Fortigurn is correct...

Sargon, is that why in 1833 the residents of New Salem (now Conneaut), Ohio, signed affidavits stating that Spalding had written a manuscript, portions of which were identical to the Book of Mormon?

These included Spalding's brother John Spalding, his wife Martha, Aaron Wright, Henry Lake, Nahum Howard, Joseph Miller, and others. Several years later residents of Amity, Pennsylvania, also signed statements that Spalding had read to them from a manuscript that was similar to the Book of Mormon. Spalding moved from New Salem to Pittsburg in 1812 and to Amity in 1814 where he died in 1816 well before the BoM, which was published in 1830..

[Fortigurn]

Fortigurn,
I indeed did read the page that I posted a link to. I recognized that it was an anti-mormon site, and I even mentioned that to you. I knew they would not support the position that that plates were real. I posted it for a different reason which you have conciously ignored. NONE of the accounts mentions a bible at all. This completely debunks your theory. It is impossible for Joseph Smith to have taken those names from the bible if he did not have a bible with him, or a list with names from the bible to use. This is a fact that you have repeatedly ignored, because you can't deal with it. There was no bible present in any of the accounts, and your theory rests on the assumption that he used a bible. Therefore, your theory is completely false. Try another one.

Actually Sargon, you posted that link for a slightly different reason. Here are your words:

I'm not sure if you consider IRR(a very anti-mormon organization) as an independant source or not, but they have a page with a list of testimonies from people who witnessed the translation process. All of these testimonies agree that Joseph had nothing with him except the plates, the hat, and the seerstone.

Remember, this is critical to your claim regarding what you refer to as 'the translation process'. You claimed that Smith had 'the plates, the hat, and the seerstone'.

You offered that link to me, saying that it gave a list of testimonies from 'people who witnessed the translation process'. You claimed 'All of these testimonies agree that Joseph had nothing with him except the plates, the hat, and the seerstone'.

But what did I find? I found that none of them say that Smith had nothing with him but 'the plates, the hat, and the seerstone'. In fact they only made mention of the hat and the seerstone.

What we can see then is that there was no translation process at all. The plates now become totally irrelevant to the issue, because it is clear that the plates were not used to write the Book of Mormon. No translation process took place at all.

What took place was a process of dictation, whereby Smith (looking at something in his hat which others could not see), dictated to people writing. This means that the plates can now be set aside, since not only is there no evidence that they existed, but they are irrelevant to the topic at hand - you cannot claim that Smith took his place names and personal names from the plates, because your own witnesses deny it.

So we must look for a source for those names, other than the plates. You cannot avoid this.

As to the accounts not mentioning the plates as being present, this poses no problem for me. There are many other accounts of the plates actually existing, and those who saw them never denied this testimony until their dieing day. This is not a fact you can simply dismiss. I could post a link providing those testimonies, but you would probably complain that it is not an objective source. An easy way out.

If you are able to provide an objective source, by all means do so. But at this point it's unnecessary. Your own witnesses have claimed that the plates were not translated. Whatever Smith wrote, he was guided by what was in his hat, not the plates.

So we can now leave the plates out of it, because my case has been proved - the plates were not the source of these names. My initial argument was that the plates were not the source of these names because the plates did not exist. I still believe they didn't exist. But my case has been proved by your own witnesses, who insist that there was no translation process from the plates. They have told us in no uncertain terms that the plates were not the source of these names.

Since the plates were not the source of these names, we must look to another source.

Again, you are avoiding the challenge because you cannot do it. I will continue to push you until you either show me proof that Joseph had a knowledge of all the places on Holley's map, or until you confess to not being able to prove it.

I'm not avoiding anything. My case is that Smith derived those names from a source other than the plates. We have seen that your own witnesses support this case. I must therefore look for another credible source. Smith's local surroundings, and the Bible commonly used in his area, are credible sources. They are credible sources because of the signfiicant number of names which are found in both those sources and in the Book of Mormon.

[Gman]

I will have to deal with Gman's rebuttal of my post later. Today is my wife's birthday and I just don't have time to get to it. But it will suffice for now to say that you are dead wrong. Have patience.

Lets look at the map of the New York and Ohio area and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Meso-America again...

"The Book of Mormon requirement for the Narrow Neck of Land/Narrow Pass is that it divided the Land Southward from the Land Northward:

'And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.' (Alma 22:32.)"

1. At its narrowest point between the Gulf of Mexico on the north and the Pacific Ocean on the south, the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is 125 miles wide. The Book of Mormon verse quoted above clearly states that it was "a day and a half's journey" for a "Nephite" to travel "from the east to the west sea." Obviously, no "Nephite" or any other human could travel 125 miles in a "day and a half" in the era proposed in the BOM, unless he possessed a means of travel unknown to modern science. Also some mountains are involved here too making the travel even longer...

2. The BOM text calls for an "east sea" and a "west sea," whereby the "narrow neck of land" would necessarily run east-west (as the BOM states, from the "land northward" and the "Land southward.")

Also there are no seas here at Isthmus of Tehuantepec... Only oceans and gulfs...

3. The BOM states that the land of Zarahemla was nearly surrounded by water. At Isthmus there isn't... But in the New York and Ohio area there is... Mormons propose that the "Land of Zarahemla" lay in the southern and narrowest point of the Isthmus (in present-day Chiapas), and the "land of Nephi" was 200 miles or so to the east (in present-day Guatemala.)

New York and Ohio area. Only 25 - 30 miles wide at it's narrowest point.



Isthmus of Tehuantepec. 125 miles wide at it's narrowest point. Almost 4 times longer than the previous map.



Three strikes and you're out.. Sorry..

Source: //www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_bomgeography.html

[Fortigurn]

Obviously, no "Nephite" or any other human could travel 125 miles in a "day and a half" in the era proposed in the BOM, unless he possessed a means of travel unknown to modern science.

Cureloms.

[Canuckster1127]

[Sargon]

In the interest of making sure that we miss nothing, I will try and focus on each topic we have branched into individually. Instead of trying to be thorough on both of your theories of the origin of the BoM at the same time, let us focus on one at a time.

I prefer to first continue with the assertions that Joseph pulled the names from the Bible.

Sargon wrote:
Fortigurn,
I indeed did read the page that I posted a link to. I recognized that it was an anti-mormon site, and I even mentioned that to you. I knew they would not support the position that that plates were real. I posted it for a different reason which you have conciously ignored. NONE of the accounts mentions a bible at all. This completely debunks your theory. It is impossible for Joseph Smith to have taken those names from the bible if he did not have a bible with him, or a list with names from the bible to use. This is a fact that you have repeatedly ignored, because you can't deal with it. There was no bible present in any of the accounts, and your theory rests on the assumption that he used a bible. Therefore, your theory is completely false. Try another one.


Actually Sargon, you posted that link for a slightly different reason. Here are your words:

After demonstrating to you that your theory is false because it requires a bible to present and open for Joseph to have taken the names for it, you simply ignore and dismiss my argument and try to steer the argument in a different direction. You claim that my original intent was for a different reason, in which claim you are again incorrect. I will cover that in a moment.
Again I stress to you that unless you can show evidence that Joseph may have read the entire bible(against his Mother's statements) and that he could have possibly memorized all the names that he took from it and also the ones that he altered and included in the BoM(against his wife's statements) you have no case. No bible was present during the translation of the Book of Mormon. That was the origin of this conversation, to determine if Joseph could have taken the names from the Bible as you suggest.

Now, my original purpose for posting the link to IRR with the testimonies of those who witnessed the translation was not to show that Joseph used plates. It was to show that he did not have a bible. If you click one page back in our discussion, and scroll down about 3/4 of the way you will find the statement by me:

No, the point is that your theory rests on the assumption that Joseph had a bible with him that he actively used in coming up with BoM names. Multiple eye witnesses testified that he had no such materials with him. Im sure you familiar with IRR, and probably have relied on their research for our discussions(an honest assumption, which could be wrong). They are a very dedicated anti-mormon organization. In their attempt to prove that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon using a seerstone and a hat, by some sort of supernatural/demonic means, they have included an impressive number of eye witness reports of just exactly how Joseph went about dictating the text of the BoM to his scribes. None of them mention a bible, and all of them mention only a hat and a stone. My purpose here is not to debate the issue of the seerstone, but rather to show you that an organization that is dedicated to the same cause you are has shown your theory to be impossible.
http://www.irr.org/MIT/divination.html

This was the original intent. Now, one post ago I said the following:

You have demonstrated that Joseph could have taken the names in the Book of Mormon from the Bible.
I'm not sure if you consider IRR(a very anti-mormon organization) as an independant source or not, but they have a page with a list of testimonies from people who witnessed the translation process. All of these testimonies agree that Joseph had nothing with him except the plates, the hat, and the seerstone.

No bible is ever mentioned, and some of them are clear that he had no other materials with him except those mentioned.

You want a link? Here:
http://www.irr.org/MIT/divination.html

After which you seized upon the fact that I included the word "plates" in my list of items present, and emphasized it as if it were the main topic at hand, which it clearly was not by the context of the discussion. In fact, you even went as far as to claim that the presence of the plates was critical to my argument, which it is not:

Remember, this is critical to your claim regarding what you refer to as 'the translation process'. You claimed that Smith had 'the plates, the hat, and the seerstone'.
...
What we can see then is that there was no translation process at all. The plates now become totally irrelevant to the issue, because it is clear that the plates were not used to write the Book of Mormon. No translation process took place at all.

Now, I admit that I did slip up in including the plates in my list of items described by the witnesses present in the translation process on the IRR website. But we must remember that the point of the IRR page is to show the process by which Joseph translated the plates, not whether or not the plates were present. One thing that almost every witness makes reference to, is that it was by this method that Joseph translated the plates, each one implying that the plates were present. One of them says that he did not use the plates in translation, which is very different from saying that the plates were not present. Only one of them says that the plates were in the woods while he translated them. But what none of them include, or make any reference to, or any implication of, is a bible being present.
Because these witnesses focused on the process of translation, they did not emphasize the presence of the plates, perhaps because it is obvoius they were present. However we are not devoid of testimonies:

According to Samuel W. Richards, Oliver Cowdery gave him the following description of the translation of the Book of Mormon:

He represented Joseph as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the "translators" over the hieroglyphics, the translation appearing distinctly on the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. Every word was distinctly visible even to every letter; and if Oliver omitted a word or failed to spell a word correctly, the translation remained on the "interpreter" until it was copied correctly.3

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table= ... V3LnBocA==

In this account the plates were present.

Also, Emma Smith said that the plates laid on the table wrapped in a linen cloth while Joseph dictated the words to her. (Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling: Richard Lyman Bushman. pg. 71)

Something to keep in mind is that the translation of the Book of Mormon was not done in one sitting, nor all in one place, nor was it witnessed by all these witnesses at the same time. And it also was not done by the same method every time. He began using the Urim and Thumim with a curtain between him and Martin Harris, then used the seerstone(not the urim and thummim) without a curtain when translating with Oliver Cowdery. Other methods are probable, but we simply don't have enough information.

What is even more pertinent to the discussion is if Joseph needed the plates to be open and present in order to translate them. By the accounts of many eye witnesses, they did not see him open the plates and translate the words in the traditional way. In fact, most of them emphasized that he translated the plates in a miraculous manner, in a manner that did not involve his actually having to see the plates. None of them commented that this was a problem, or an impossibiblity. Were Joseph to translate in the traditional manner, using his own human wisdom, he would not have been able to translate a single word. He had no knowledge of the language on the plates. He never claimed to have learned it either. He was given the translation of the plates without being required to learn the language, to read the caracters, or to even open the book. It was by the use of divine interpreters, the urim and thummim and a seerstone, that Joseph was able to translate.

So your claim that Joseph did not take the words from the plates because none of the witnesses mentions Joseph using the plates in the translation is not strong. There is much evidence for the actual existence of the plates, and much evidence that Joseph translated by unordinary and miraculous methods.

This discussion is about whether or not Joseph could have taken the names from the Bible. None of the witnesses make any suggestion that a bible was used in the dictation of the BoM. Most of them imply that the plates were present. His wife Emma said:

Emma said, "He had neither manuscript nor book to read from, [and] if he had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me" ("Last Testimony of Sister Emma," pp. 289-290).
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:pe ... =clnk&cd=3

More later.

Sargon

[Fortigurn]

After demonstrating to you that your theory is false because it requires a bible to present and open for Joseph to have taken the names for it, you simply ignore and dismiss my argument and try to steer the argument in a different direction. You claim that my original intent was for a different reason, in which claim you are again incorrect. I will cover that in a moment.

No Sargon, nothing has changed. The issue is, and always has been, the source of Smith's information. Your claim was that Smith took his information from the plates. You have provided no evidence for this whatever. You claimed that he 'translated' the plates, but cannot present a single account of him ever actually being involved in the process of translation. The eye witness accounts to which you linked, which supposedly proved that the plates were present when he 'translated' from them, said no such thing.

Again I stress to you that unless you can show evidence that Joseph may have read the entire bible(against his Mother's statements) and that he could have possibly memorized all the names that he took from it and also the ones that he altered and included in the BoM(against his wife's statements) you have no case.

I don't have to provide any such thing. There was no necessity for him to have read the entire Bible, or even memorized all the names from it.

No bible was present during the translation of the Book of Mormon. That was the origin of this conversation, to determine if Joseph could have taken the names from the Bible as you suggest.

But Sargon, your own witnesses have proved that no translation process took place. There was no translation process. He wasn't even looking at the plates. Wherever the information came from, it didn't come from the plates. So we must look to another source.

Now, my original purpose for posting the link to IRR with the testimonies of those who witnessed the translation was not to show that Joseph used plates. It was to show that he did not have a bible.

Yes, I know you are trying to prove that he didn't use a Bible as the source of the Book of Mormon. You attempted to prove this by providing alleged eye witness accounts that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates, and that a Bible was not present. But none of these alleged eye witness accounts said that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates, and they are all clear on the fact that the plates were not present.

Now you appeal to the fact that they don't mention a Bible. That doesn't matter to me. You see I don't even have to take these alleged eye witness accounts seriously.

One thing that almost every witness makes reference to, is that it was by this method that Joseph translated the plates, each one implying that the plates were present.

On the contrary, none of these accounts say anything about translating the plates, and all of them say that the only things present were the hat and the seerstone.

Because these witnesses focused on the process of translation, they did not emphasize the presence of the plates, perhaps because it is obvoius they were present.

Proof please. Provide evidence that the plates were present, but that they didn't mention them. Prove that saying all Smith had was the hat and the seerstone really means that all Smith had was the plates, the hat, and the seerstone.

However we are not devoid of testimonies:

According to Samuel W. Richards, Oliver Cowdery gave him the following description of the translation of the Book of Mormon:

He represented Joseph as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the "translators" over the hieroglyphics, the translation appearing distinctly on the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. Every word was distinctly visible even to every letter; and if Oliver omitted a word or failed to spell a word correctly, the translation remained on the "interpreter" until it was copied correctly.3

Unfortunately this contradicts the other testimonies, which is why all the 'eye witness accounts' are suspect.

Also, Emma Smith said that the plates laid on the table wrapped in a linen cloth while Joseph dictated the words to her. (Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling: Richard Lyman Bushman. pg. 71)

In other words, she saw something in a linen cloth (which could have beren anything), and Smith did not use whatever was in the cloth as the source of his 'translation'.

Something to keep in mind is that the translation of the Book of Mormon was not done in one sitting, nor all in one place, nor was it witnessed by all these witnesses at the same time. And it also was not done by the same method every time. He began using the Urim and Thumim with a curtain between him and Martin Harris, then used the seerstone(not the urim and thummim) without a curtain when translating with Oliver Cowdery. Other methods are probable, but we simply don't have enough information.

We have more than enough information to prove that the alleged 'eye witness accounts' of the alleged 'translation' process contradict each other. Most of them are clear on the fact that no translation took place, and the plates were not present.

What is even more pertinent to the discussion is if Joseph needed the plates to be open and present in order to translate them. By the accounts of many eye witnesses, they did not see him open the plates and translate the words in the traditional way. In fact, most of them emphasized that he translated the plates in a miraculous manner, in a manner that did not involve his actually having to see the plates. None of them commented that this was a problem, or an impossibiblity. Were Joseph to translate in the traditional manner, using his own human wisdom, he would not have been able to translate a single word. He had no knowledge of the language on the plates. He never claimed to have learned it either. He was given the translation of the plates without being required to learn the language, to read the caracters, or to even open the book. It was by the use of divine interpreters, the urim and thummim and a seerstone, that Joseph was able to translate.

If he is not taking information from the plates and translating it, then it is not translation. What you describe is direct revelation. It doesn't matter what was on the plates, because Smith was shown English by means of a completely different medium. When you read English out loud, and someone writes it down, that's not translation. That's reading and dictation. So there was no translation process, and the plates were not the source of the Book of Mormon.