"...metallurgy in the Book of Mormon..."

[twopekinguys]

Originally Posted by twopekinguys

I found this interesting site from the University of N. Carolina.

Look under the headings of Archeology, and Metallurgy.

http://www.ils.unc.edu/~unsworth/mormon/index.html

I forgot to mention, the gentleman Thomas S. Ferguson that is quoted so much on that site, was instrumental in establishing the Dept. of Archeology at BYU.

He set out to prove the BoM as factual, and ended up proving himself right out of mormonism.

[SirThomasMore]

that says quite a lot

[MelanieAnne]

Originally Posted by twopekinguys

I forgot to mention, the gentleman Thomas S. Ferguson that is quoted so much on that site, was instrumental in establishing the Dept. of Archeology at BYU.

He set out to prove the BoM as factual, and ended up proving himself right out of mormonism.

Fascinating.

So I guess his testimony changed to "I know that the Book of Mormon is NOT true..."

[campeador]

Originally Posted by why me

So, how that book came to be is not so easy to explain.

Well, maybe if you're not willing to look very hard...

BOOK OF MORMON AUTHORSHIP: A Closer Look has this sub-title:
"A comprehensive study of the similarities between the Book of Mormon and the writings of Solomon Spaulding."

About the Spalding manuscript (from wiki):

In 1832, Latter Day Saint missionaries Samuel H. Smith and Orson Hyde visited Conneaut, Ohio, and preached from the Book of Mormon. Nehemiah King, a resident of Conneaut who knew Spalding when he lived there, felt that the Mormon text resembled the story written by Spalding years before. In 1833, Spalding's brother John and seven other residents of Conneaut signed affidavits stating that Spalding had written a manuscript, portions of which were identical to the Book of Mormon. These statements were published in E. D. Howe's 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed, in which the theory was presented that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from this manuscript.

Woodbridge Riley, in The founder of Mormonism: a psychological study of Joseph Smith, Jr, (pp 124-25) had this to say about the Hebraic origins of the American Indian:

Interest in these theories was wide; as was said by Ethan Smith in his ' View of the Hebrews or the Tribes of Israel in America,'—the importance of the question 'Where are the ten tribes of Israel?,' brought about a speedy sale of the first edition. This work was published in Poultney, Vermont, next to Windsor County, where Joseph's parents once lived, and by 1825 had circulated to westernmost New York.

Parallels between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon (from wiki):

It has been argued that there are significant parallels between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. In 1922 B.H. Roberts (1857–1933), a prominent LDS apologist and historian, was asked to answer a non-believer's five critical questions by LDS Apostle James E. Talmage. It is unclear when Roberts first learned of the View of the Hebrews or what motivated him to make the comparison, but he produced a confidential report that summarized eighteen points of similarity between the two works.

and

Fawn Brodie, the first important historian to write a non-hagiographic biography of Joseph Smith, believed that Joseph Smith's theory of the Hebraic origin of the American Indians came "chiefly" from View of the Hebrews.

[twopekinguys]

Originally Posted by campeador

Well, maybe if you're not willing to look very hard...

BOOK OF MORMON AUTHORSHIP: A Closer Look has this sub-title:
"A comprehensive study of the similarities between the Book of Mormon and the writings of Solomon Spaulding."

About the Spalding manuscript (from wiki):


Woodbridge Riley, in The founder of Mormonism: a psychological study of Joseph Smith, Jr, (pp 124-25) had this to say about the Hebraic origins of the American Indian:


Parallels between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon (from wiki):

and

Did you know that the Title page of the 1830 version of the BoM, shows JS as the "Author", not the "Translator"

http://www.inephi.com/1.htm

Considering this is a scanned image of that page, it is kind of hard to refute.

[hosemonkey]

The only thing that I could even remotely give credit to Joseph Smith for would be a prodigious imagination. He rivals L. Ron Hubbard himself, who was also a science fiction writer and also manufactured his own religion. Suffice it to say, that even after all the time and treasure spent by the mormon "church" to prove the truth of the BOM, not a shred of evidence exists to verify all the yarns spun by Joseph in hopes of legitimizing his bogus "religion." This thread merely points out just one of the falsities of the BOM. Prove the BOM? Good luck, mormons.

[why me]

Originally Posted by SirThomasMore

that says quite a lot

Not really. But let me put it this way: North Carolina is a public university. Do you really think that a public university would endorse the web page that seems to be leeching onto it? I don't think so. Suppose a similiar webpage was started about the catholic faith. Do you think that a public university should be helping catholics leave their faith? Of course, in our biasness we fail to see the wrong. The las time I looked mormons pay state taxes in North Carolina. No public university should be engaged with such a site especially since the site is hooked up to a North Carolina University department's webpage.

No public university would endorse this type of webpage and so, the site is already suspect. See my point?

And people are entitled to what they want to believe. Do you think that no catholic academic lost their faith and went to the other side? Are they any more reliable than someone else?

[why me]

Originally Posted by campeador

Well, maybe if you're not willing to look very hard...

BOOK OF MORMON AUTHORSHIP: A Closer Look has this sub-title:
"A comprehensive study of the similarities between the Book of Mormon and the writings of Solomon Spaulding."

About the Spalding manuscript (from wiki):


Woodbridge Riley, in The founder of Mormonism: a psychological study of Joseph Smith, Jr, (pp 124-25) had this to say about the Hebraic origins of the American Indian:


Parallels between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon (from wiki):

and

And this proves what exactly? No serious critic of Mormonism believes that Joseph Smith borrowed from the View of the Hebrews. And of course, there have been studies about Joseph Smith and mormonism. But that proves nothing also.

But this is interesting:

View of the Hebrews during the lifetime of Joseph Smith
The theory the Joseph Smith plagiarized View of the Hebrews was never advanced during his lifetime. The prevailing theory of the day was the Spalding Theory, which quickly lost credibility upon the discovery of an actual Spalding manuscript in 1884 which bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon. There are no records which indicate that Joseph Smith came into contact with the View of the Hebrews during the period of time that he was translating the Book of Mormon. The View of the Hebrews theory was in fact first proposed by I. Woodbridge Riley in 1902, 58 years after the death of the prophet.[1]

There was, however, a reference to View of the Hebrews within Joseph Smith's lifetime, but it came from the prophet himself. In an article published in the Times and Seasons on June 1, 1842, Joseph quoted View of the Hebrews in support of the Book of Mormon:

If such may have been the fact, that a part of the Ten Tribes came over to America, in the way we have supposed, leaving the cold regions of Assareth behind them in quest of a milder climate, it would be natural to look for tokens of the presence of Jews of some sort, along countries adjacent to the Atlantic. In order to this, we shall here make an extract from an able work: written exclusively on the subject of the Ten Tribes having come from Asia by the way of Bherings Strait, by the Rev. Ethan Smith, Pultney, Vt., who relates as follows: "Joseph Merrick, Esq., a highly respectable character in the church at Pittsfield, gave the following account: That in 1815, he was leveling some ground under and near an old wood shed, standing on a place of his, situated on (Indian Hill)... [Joseph then discusses the supposed phylacteries found among Amerindians, citing View of the Hebrews p. 220, 223.][2]
It strains credulity to claim that Joseph drew attention to the work from which he derived most of his ideas. Why would he call attention to the source of his forgery?


http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mor...of_the_Hebrews

You really should research the other side before you reach conclusions. There is more to the picture than the antisites claim.

[why me]

This thread is not about the view of the hebrews. But about metallurgy. And I provided sources that demonstrated the use of metals during the time frame of the book of mormon.

[campeador]

Originally Posted by why me

so, how that book came to be is not so easy to explain.

My earlier post did not point to the most obvious answer to your query.

3 Nephi 10:3-6:

3. And it came to pass that there came a voice again unto the people, and all the people did hear, and did witness of it, saying:

4. O ye people of these great cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, how oft have i gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and have nourished you.

5. And again, how oft would i have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, yea, o ye people of the house of Israel, who have fallen; yea, o ye people of the house of Israel, ye that dwell at Jerusalem, as ye that have fallen; yea, how oft would i have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not.

6. O ye house of israel whom i have 'spared, how oft will i gather you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if ye will repent and return unto me with full purpose of heart.

Sound familiar? It should:
Matthew 23:37 (KJV):

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

You could fill many volumes with embellishments like that.

[campeador]

Originally Posted by why me

And this proves what exactly? No serious critic of Mormonism believes that Joseph Smith borrowed from the View of the Hebrews. And of course, there have been studies about Joseph Smith and mormonism. But that proves nothing also.

B.H. Roberts was not a 'serious critic of Mormonism', that is true. But he was a Mormon leader, historian, and politician who published a six-volume history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (wiki source)

Studies of the Book of Mormon, is a collection of previously unpublished manuscripts, written by B.H. Roberts (from wiki):

Roberts gave three conditions that would suggest that one book had been derived from another: that the derivative book had appeared after its model, that the author of the derivative book had access to the model, and that the derivative work be similar to the model. Roberts concluded that View of the Hebrews had been published first, that the possibility that Smith had access to it was "a very close certainty," and that there were many similarities between the works. The bulk of Roberts' manuscript considers the similarities between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon.

Would you please read what I've actually provided and not dismiss it out of hand with some lengthy fairmormon.org 'cut and paste' that rarely addresses the points I was trying to make? I don't think you've checked a single link I've provided.

Originally Posted by why me

You really should research the other side before you reach conclusions. There is more to the picture than the antisites claim.

Is Wikipedia an anti-Mormon site???

[why me]

Originally Posted by campeador

B.H. Roberts was not a 'serious critic of Mormonism', that is true. But he was a Mormon leader, historian, and politician who published a six-volume history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (wiki source)

Studies of the Book of Mormon, is a collection of previously unpublished manuscripts, written by B.H. Roberts (from wiki):

Would you please read what I've actually provided and not dismiss it out of hand with some lengthy fairmormon.org 'cut and paste' that rarely addresses the points I was trying to make? I don't think you've checked a single link I've provided.

Is Wikipedia an anti-Mormon site???

I have read them and responded. You need to understand of what BH Roberts was attempted to do. Here is a summary:

B.H. Roberts' examination of the theory
Main article: B.H. Roberts and Studies of the Book of Mormon
The View of the Hebrews theory was examined in detail by B. H. Roberts in 1921 and 1922. Roberts took the position of examining the Book of Mormon from a critical perspective in order to alert the General Authorities to possible future avenues of attack by critics. The resulting manuscripts were titled Book of Mormon Difficulties and A Parallel. Roberts, who believed in a hemispheric geography for the Book of Mormon, highlighted a number of parallels between View of the Hebrews and The Book of Mormon. Roberts stated,

[C]ould the people of Mulek and of Lehi...part of the time numbering and occupying the land at least from Yucatan to Cumorah...live and move and have their being in the land of America and not come in contact with other races and tribes of men, if such existed in the New World within Book of Mormon times? To make this seem possible the area occupied by the Nephites and Lamanites would have to be extremely limited, much more limited, I fear, than the Book of Mormon would admit our assuming.[3]
Roberts concluded that, if one assumed that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon himself, that View of the Hebrews could have provided him with a foundation for creating the book. In fact, many of the issues highlighted by Roberts vanish when a limited geography theory is considered. The acceptance of the View of the Hebrews theory is therefore contingent upon the acceptance of a hemispheric geography model for the Book of Mormon. In order to promote View of the Hebrews as a source, critics necessarily reject any limited geography theory proposal for the Book of Mormon.

In 1985, Roberts' manuscripts were published under the title Studies of the Book of Mormon. This book is used by critics to support their claim that B. H. Roberts lost his testimony after performing the study. Roberts, however, clearly continued to publicly support the Book of Mormon until his death, and reaffirmed his testimony both publicly and in print.

By picking off websites that may not be mormon friendly, you lose the context. And yes, Wikipedia can be antimormon depending on who is writing the information and the interpretation offered.

However, you can find much information about BH Roberts here:

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=0064809...sa.x=9&sa.y=10

Now I have challenged the interpretation offered here on this thread by quoting Joseph Smith mentioning the view of the hebrews in the newpaper from something that he wrote. I also stated that the book was known among the early saints but no critic ever challenged Joseph Smith about authorship plagarism by using view of the hebrews. It came much later long after he was dead. And now I am showing the context behind BH Roberts research.

Any problems? It is quite easy to find antimormon sources. They are a dime a dozen on the internet. But in the end, what they say comes to naught.

[why me]

Originally Posted by campeador

Would you please read what I've actually provided and not dismiss it out of hand with some lengthy fairmormon.org 'cut and paste' that rarely addresses the points I was trying to make? I don't think you've checked a single link I've provided.

I have been defending the lds church for a long time. I have seen it all before many times and the interpretations that they offer. But I also know the mormon interpretations. You see for Smith to use the view of the hebrews he would have needed to be seen with the book and writing a book of mormon manucript. But he was never seen with a manuscript. Also, his research would have occured when he was quite young...20 or 21 years old. Critics have him money digging and farming at this time. Not much time to sit down unnoticed to write a book. Also, the amount of rough drafts involved and paper involved would be enormous. The smith family were a little short of money at that time. His taking money for ink, paper and pens would have been noticed.

And even his future wife emma claimed that she never saw him with a manucript and throughout her life, always denied that her husband could have written the book of mormon.

[why me]

Originally Posted by hosemonkey

The only thing that I could even remotely give credit to Joseph Smith for would be a prodigious imagination. He rivals L. Ron Hubbard himself, who was also a science fiction writer and also manufactured his own religion. Suffice it to say, that even after all the time and treasure spent by the mormon "church" to prove the truth of the BOM, not a shred of evidence exists to verify all the yarns spun by Joseph in hopes of legitimizing his bogus "religion." This thread merely points out just one of the falsities of the BOM. Prove the BOM? Good luck, mormons.

I don't know Hose, can you prove the bible true. If so, please inform Richard Dawkins. He needs to know so he can stop wasting his time writing atheistic books. And I do believe that Richard Dawkins can also claim that the gospel writers had a wonderful imagination too. Do you see my point? Life is always difficult on the other side of the fence.

So please, prove the bible true so we no longer need faith but live on evidence that you can provide.

Now of course, this has nothing to do with metals that did exist during book of mormon times as I referenced.

[ParkerD]

Originally Posted by why me

I have read them and responded. You need to understand of what BH Roberts was attempted to do. Here is a summary:

B.H. Roberts' examination of the theory
Main article: B.H. Roberts and Studies of the Book of Mormon
The View of the Hebrews theory was examined in detail by B. H. Roberts in 1921 and 1922. Roberts took the position of examining the Book of Mormon from a critical perspective in order to alert the General Authorities to possible future avenues of attack by critics. The resulting manuscripts were titled Book of Mormon Difficulties and A Parallel. Roberts, who believed in a hemispheric geography for the Book of Mormon, highlighted a number of parallels between View of the Hebrews and The Book of Mormon. Roberts stated,

[C]ould the people of Mulek and of Lehi...part of the time numbering and occupying the land at least from Yucatan to Cumorah...live and move and have their being in the land of America and not come in contact with other races and tribes of men, if such existed in the New World within Book of Mormon times? To make this seem possible the area occupied by the Nephites and Lamanites would have to be extremely limited, much more limited, I fear, than the Book of Mormon would admit our assuming.[3]
Roberts concluded that, if one assumed that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon himself, that View of the Hebrews could have provided him with a foundation for creating the book. In fact, many of the issues highlighted by Roberts vanish when a limited geography theory is considered. The acceptance of the View of the Hebrews theory is therefore contingent upon the acceptance of a hemispheric geography model for the Book of Mormon. In order to promote View of the Hebrews as a source, critics necessarily reject any limited geography theory proposal for the Book of Mormon.

In 1985, Roberts' manuscripts were published under the title Studies of the Book of Mormon. This book is used by critics to support their claim that B. H. Roberts lost his testimony after performing the study. Roberts, however, clearly continued to publicly support the Book of Mormon until his death, and reaffirmed his testimony both publicly and in print.

By picking off websites that may not be mormon friendly, you lose the context. And yes, Wikipedia can be antimormon depending on who is writing the information and the interpretation offered.

However, you can find much information about BH Roberts here:

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=0064809...sa.x=9&sa.y=10

Now I have challenged the interpretation offered here on this thread by quoting Joseph Smith mentioning the view of the hebrews in the newpaper from something that he wrote. I also stated that the book was known among the early saints but no critic ever challenged Joseph Smith about authorship plagarism by using view of the hebrews. It came much later long after he was dead. And now I am showing the context behind BH Roberts research.

Any problems? It is quite easy to find antimormon sources. They are a dime a dozen on the internet. But in the end, what they say comes to naught.

Why me,
I just wanted to thank you for your kindness and continuing patience (far more than I have) as you explain these kinds of matters that come up so often.