Joseph Smith and the translation of the gold plates

[Fortigurn]

Sargon, was it from you that Pahoran discovered the identify of my denomination? I don't actually care if you did it (and I would have been perfectly comfortable answering his question), but I would like to know.

[Sargon]

Fortigurn,

I have not followed very closely your participation on the other forum. Since you began posting there you have posted much more than I have. I just haven't had time. I did notice however while reading a few of the threads, that you were percieved by most as unfair and conniving. I would agree that some of the time you were not. Call it a matter of opinion.
If you go back and read some of the early posts from our discussions on this board, it was not always so civil between us. We have established a relationship of civility, because we needed it. Until that time we simply were reacting in a manner that refleced the way we were treating each other. I suggest that perhaps your first impression on the other board did not fade as quickly as you would have liked.

I have noticed that on that board there are some who have developed relationships of civility as you and I have, and though they bitterly oppose each other, they are capable of doing so without insult. Unfortunately many of the critics and believers have not been able to accomplish that. I disagree with the way that many of the LDS present their arguments, and agree that many of them should be banned. I encourage you to not make the mistake of considering that a fair introduction to LDS culture. That site is home to what many LDS would consider a small minority, as far as culture is concerned.

As for Pahoran, I think he is terribly rude and not at all representative of the attitudes our church strives to stand for. I do not know your denomination, and I do not hold communication with Pahoran.

The benefits of that forum for me, is that it is a place where I can contact others who are concerned about LDS apologetics, and share ideas.



As for our discussion on this thread, I believe we are going in circles.

Yes, we've agreed that you're starting from an unverifiable position, which is not a good place to be.

I don't see it at all that way. I see triumphant evidence, that allows for my faith to flourish, while not squashing faith with absolute knowledge.

Yes, but you've also shown that what they described was not a process of translation.

No, I have shown that it is not the process of translation that fortigurn wants to see.

Quote:
I have shown that the plates were real.


No, you've shown me a number of people who believe they were real, even though many of those people didn't actually see them.

Your mistake is that you only allow one of the 5 senses to be used. And besides that, plenty of people have seen the plates.

No, not once have you shown what could conceivably be described as a translation process. Again and again we have seen that what is described is a process of revelation, and even some Mormon apologists have acknowledged this.

You misunderstand. What I have shown, is that although there is no process of translation that it evident to us, this does not reject the possibility of a translation process we can't percieve.

This means that whatever information is in the Book of Mormon, we are not only free to look for a source other than the plates, but it is beholden on us to do so.

And no source has been found.

It doesn't help that at least one of the eye witnesses records Smith having a Bible in the same room while he was dictating, and even consulting it to ensure the accuracy of what he was dictating.

Ya, you keep bringing that up. What this story actually represents is that Joseph was so ignorant of biblical history, it would have been impossible for him write what he did on his own.

Fortigurn, it has been an educational discussion. But I have lost interest for now. Perhaps we will resume on day. God bless.

Sargon

[Gman]

Sargon,

I'm deeply sorry that you have been lead astray by this Mormon deception.. I would sincerely advise you to take a closer look into the book "Who really wrote the Book of Mormon" so that you too will also find the truth. It is simply loaded with eye witness accounts to the history behind the making of the BoM. As an example, there is much evidence that Sidney Rigdon (who took Spalding's manuscript) did in fact visit Joseph Smith from 1827-1829 just prior to the BoM publication in March 1830. The book is loaded with the testimonies of the people that lived in around Smith, Rigdon and Cowdery at that time.. If you would like I will post some of them for you...



I would also like to give you a brief overview of what was going on prior to the BoM's publication in 1830 (that I really wasn't aware of). First, the areas in and around the northeast (that is Ohio, Michigan, New York, etc.) are literally covered with thousands these Indian mounds..





Many of these mounds are still found in river valleys, especially along the Mississippi, Tennessee and Ohio Rivers. These mounds were used for burial, to support residential and religious structures, to represent a shared cosmology, and to unite and demarcate community.

Here are just a few parks in the U.S. dedicated to these Indian mounds...

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopewell_Culture_National_Historical_Park
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_Mound
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Creek_Indian_Mounds_Park
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Mound_Cemetery

People back then (who were poor or gold diggers) would go to these mounds and try to dig for buried treasure and old relics.. They were also going stir crazy trying to find out how these mounds got there.. In their minds they were from a lost civilization of people but no one had any real evidence of where they came from.. Hence people like Spalding, Rigdon, and Smith jumped on the opportunity to try and expose the truth or create stories about them...

The first of these is found in a statement given by Samuel F. Whitney about Sidney Rigdon and his answer for these mounds (well before the BoM's publication).

"I came to Kirtland, Ohio in 1826. ... heard Sidney Rigdon preach in Squire Sawyers' orchard in 1827. He said how desirable it would be to know who built the forts and mounds about the country. Soon it would all be revealed."

A somewhat similar statement was provided to Amos S. Hayden by Darwin Atwater:

"That [Rigdon] knew before [i.e., "had prior knowledge"] of the coming of The Book of Mormon is to me certain, from what he said on the first of his visits at my father's, some years before. He gave a wonderful description of the mounds and other antiquities found in some parts of America, and said they must have been made by the Aborigines. He said there was a book to be published containing an account of those things. He spoke of these . . . as being a thing most extraordinary.

As the evidence clearly shows, people back then were simply infatuated with these mounds... People were coming up all types of reasonings as to how they got there... When Joseph, Rigdon, and the others came up with their evidence, you can see where people finally thought that hey had an answer to their quest..

Sargon, please, I urge you not to just take my word for it but that you yourself take a look at the information in this book..

Thank you for your time,

G -

[Sargon]

Gman,

As I have already said, I have not yet had the opportunity to do any in depth study of this issue. I have however artificially read some things pertaining to it, and I find it interesting. I am open to ideas, criticisms, and debate on the issue. However at this time I cannot consider myself a very good authority on this issue.
I am aware of the mound-builder hype that existed in the Northeast region at the time of Joseph Smith. Upon reading your post, my first reaction was, "Yes, very well, but the Book of Mormon doesn't provide any theories about those mounds, doesn't even mention them, and so I don't see how it is relevant." Perhaps you can enlighten me on why those mounds are relevant to this discussion from your perspective.

I intend to spend some time studying this issue more thoroughly as soon as time permits. Perhaps during spring break.

Sargon

[Gman]

Gman,

As I have already said, I have not yet had the opportunity to do any in depth study of this issue. I have however artificially read some things pertaining to it, and I find it interesting. I am open to ideas, criticisms, and debate on the issue. However at this time I cannot consider myself a very good authority on this issue.

Yes, Sargon it's ok... This was why I was offering you to look into this more.. To be perfectly honest with you, this "Spalding Enigma" is new to me also. I've heard about it in the past but never at this level.. I've only had this book about 3 weeks now.

I am aware of the mound-builder hype that existed in the Northeast region at the time of Joseph Smith. Upon reading your post, my first reaction was, "Yes, very well, but the Book of Mormon doesn't provide any theories about those mounds, doesn't even mention them, and so I don't see how it is relevant." Perhaps you can enlighten me on why those mounds are relevant to this discussion from your perspective.

Sargon, these mounds bring up a number of issues to the BoM that I can see...

1. Many people back then were digging up these mounds looking for buried treasure. Also back then many people didn't really know what these mounds were used for as we do today.. Which is why people like Spalding, Rigdon, and Smith jumped on the opportunity to try explain it.

In other words, treasure hunting back then around these mounds was very common among many people back then. Something that Spalding, Rigdon, and Smith probably did many times before, but with not much success of finding anything.. Thus they tried to make up stories about them to fulfill people's curiosity in them.. It would make a great sell to find the truth...

2. In the BoM, Smith claims that several hundred thousand Nephites and Jaredite nations perished was on the hill "Cumorah," the same hill from which the plates were taken by Joseph Smith. Thus, a mound reveals a hidden treasure and a story.. The people will be enticed to hear the truth..

3. Joseph was trying to prove that these many Indian mounds were proof of a huge ancient civilization that once lived in northern America (not central America).

4. Well before the BoM was published, Sidney Rigdon claims how desirable it would be to know who built the forts and mounds about the country and that soon it would all be revealed... The answer that people have been waiting for.

I intend to spend some time studying this issue more thoroughly as soon as time permits. Perhaps during spring break.

Sargon

Ok Sargon... Thanks... At least look it over... Then you can at least say I've been there and done that one. Again, this is not to hurt you.. Like I've told you before (I think) I was once part of a cult group called "The Way" back in the 80's. They told me that they had all the truth and that if I were to stay with them in their studies that I would know more about the Bible and God than the 99 percent of the people out there. I was completely enticed because I really didn't study the Bible before.. And I thought I had God all down... Little did I know that I was actually AGAINST HIM... It was a terrible time in my life, but I grew and learned a lot about God after that. I was SO relieved to learn the truth about God in the coming years. Like a breath of fresh air... Like a bee flying to honey, it's been an experience I will never give up... I consider myself fortunate now that God would even look at me after all that junk that I pulled... It was truly evil of me...

God bless you Sargon,

G -

[Sargon]

1. Many people back then were digging up these mounds looking for buried treasure. Also back then many people didn't really know what these mounds were used for as we do today.. Which is why people like Spalding, Rigdon, and Smith jumped on the opportunity to try explain it.[/

Thats just it though, I know of no instance where Joseph or Sidney ever made any correlation between the mounds and the BoM peoples. Perhaps we might dig up some quote somewhere on the internet to refute my current knowledge. I am currently reading Spaulding's story for the first time, Ill let you know if he ever mentions anything of the nature.

Thus they tried to make up stories about them to fulfill people's curiosity in them.. It would make a great sell to find the truth...

2. In the BoM, Smith claims that several hundred thousand Nephites and Jaredite nations perished was on the hill "Cumorah," the same hill from which the plates were taken by Joseph Smith. Thus, a mound reveals a hidden treasure and a story.. The people will be enticed to hear the truth..

I don't see any real argument in this. There is a hill mentioned in the book. So what? The book never speaks of how the hill got there, what it was for, or if there were any others. Your point is that people wondered about where the hills came from is it not? The BoM does not answer that question.
And besides, despite Joseph's evolving understanding of what the book actually says, the book represents the hill that the battle was fought on as a different hill in which the gold plate were buried. We have already been covered this before.
I know of no speculative discussion among the early saints following the publication of the BoM about the origins of the thousands of mounds covering the region. The BoM simply does not address the issue.

3. Joseph was trying to prove that these many Indian mounds were proof of a huge ancient civilization that once lived in northern America (not central America).

While it is certainly probable that Joseph profited from the pre-existant hype about the origins of the mounds, there is no evidence that he used that hype to sell more books. He certianly didn't exploit that excitement if that is what you are contending.

4. Well before the BoM was published, Sidney Rigdon claims how desirable it would be to know who built the forts and mounds about the country and that soon it would all be revealed... The answer that people have been waiting for.

Do you have a source for this quote?
And do you know of any instance in which Rigdon makes a connection between the BoM and the mounds??

Ok Sargon... Thanks... At least look it over... Then you can at least say I've been there and done that one. Again, this is not to hurt you.. Like I've told you before (I think) I was once part of a cult group called "The Way" back in the 80's. They told me that they had all the truth and that if I were to stay with them in their studies that I would know more about the Bible and God than the 99 percent of the people out there. I was completely enticed because I really didn't study the Bible before.. And I thought I had God all down... Little did I know that I was actually AGAINST HIM... It was a terrible time in my life, but I grew and learned a lot about God after that. I was SO relieved to learn the truth about God in the coming years. Like a breath of fresh air... Like a bee flying to honey, it's been an experience I will never give up... I consider myself fortunate now that God would even look at me after all that junk that I pulled... It was truly evil of me...

I am very sorry that you found yourself caught up in a cult, but I am happy you found your way out. I have been blessed so far in my life as to not have been involved in any cults.

I appreciate the sudden improvement in politeness between each other.

Sargon

[Sargon]

repeat post.

[Gman]

Thats just it though, I know of no instance where Joseph or Sidney ever made any correlation between the mounds and the BoM peoples. Perhaps we might dig up some quote somewhere on the internet to refute my current knowledge. I am currently reading Spaulding's story for the first time, Ill let you know if he ever mentions anything of the nature.

Did you get the book? There was a quote already given by Samuel F. Whitney (I shared a couple of posts up) he said that he heard Sidney Rigdon preach in Squire Sawyers' orchard in 1827. He said how desirable it would be to know who built the forts and mounds about the country. Soon it would all be revealed.

I don't see any real argument in this. There is a hill mentioned in the book. So what? The book never speaks of how the hill got there, what it was for, or if there were any others. Your point is that people wondered about where the hills came from is it not? The BoM does not answer that question.
And besides, despite Joseph's evolving understanding of what the book actually says, the book represents the hill that the battle was fought on as a different hill in which the gold plate were buried. We have already been covered this before.

Part of the point I'm trying to make here is that Joseph thought these Indian mounds were proof of a large ancient civilization that once lived in northern America.

Let me try to put the other part in another way.. Let's say I lived back then and didn't know anything about Mormonism. Every day I would walk to work or something and see these mounds but not know really what they were for. It would be a mystery.. And people actually did find treasures in these mounds back then.. But then someone (like Joseph) digs up a treasure trove of gold plates and a history of an ancient civilization... Do you think I would be at least curious? In other words, the grounds for belief were already dug.. A seed was planted..

While it is certainly probable that Joseph profited from the pre-existant hype about the origins of the mounds, there is no evidence that he used that hype to sell more books. He certianly didn't exploit that excitement if that is what you are contending.

I have other sources that would say otherwise.. I can share them with you later if you wish...

Do you have a source for this quote?
And do you know of any instance in which Rigdon makes a connection between the BoM and the mounds??

Yes from Samuel F. Whitney (above). There was something else about it in the book too, but I don't remember where... If I find it again I will tell you..

I am very sorry that you found yourself caught up in a cult, but I am happy you found your way out. I have been blessed so far in my life as to not have been involved in any cults.

Very well Sargon..

I appreciate the sudden improvement in politeness between each other.

Likewise... Again I don't have harsh feelings towards you.. But as you know I'm not too content with Mormonism.

[Sargon]

My response to you last post are printed in blue.

Thats just it though, I know of no instance where Joseph or Sidney ever made any correlation between the mounds and the BoM peoples. Perhaps we might dig up some quote somewhere on the internet to refute my current knowledge. I am currently reading Spaulding's story for the first time, Ill let you know if he ever mentions anything of the nature.

Did you get the book? There was a quote already given by Samuel F. Whitney (I shared a couple of posts up) he said that he heard Sidney Rigdon preach in Squire Sawyers' orchard in 1827. He said how desirable it would be to know who built the forts and mounds about the country. Soon it would all be revealed.

You are mistaken. I did not buy or read the book you are reading. The book you are reading attempts to link the BoM with the Spalding Manuscript. What I am reading is the Spalding Manuscript. I have already read the Book of Mormon many times, but never the Spalding Manuscript. I suggest you read both of them for yourself before you decide that they have anything in common.
The quote from Samual F. Whitney(I would still like to know where it comes from) is interesting, but simply doesn't prove anything. If Sidney said that soon we would know the history of the mound builders, and if he secretly was referring to the future production of the BoM, his "prediction" was clearly a failure. The Book of Mormon makes no mention of mounds, no mention of mound builders, or anything of the like.

I don't see any real argument in this. There is a hill mentioned in the book. So what? The book never speaks of how the hill got there, what it was for, or if there were any others. Your point is that people wondered about where the hills came from is it not? The BoM does not answer that question.
And besides, despite Joseph's evolving understanding of what the book actually says, the book represents the hill that the battle was fought on as a different hill in which the gold plate were buried. We have already been covered this before.

Part of the point I'm trying to make here is that Joseph thought these Indian mounds were proof of a large ancient civilization that once lived in northern America.

I understand. But it doesn't add up. If Joseph thought that the mounds were proof of a large ancient civilization in N. America, he did not use that idea at all in the BoM. Like I said, the BoM doesn't further that theory at all.

Let me try to put the other part in another way.. Let's say I lived back then and didn't know anything about Mormonism. Every day I would walk to work or something and see these mounds but not know really what they were for. It would be a mystery.. And people actually did find treasures in these mounds back then.. But then someone (like Joseph) digs up a treasure trove of gold plates and a history of an ancient civilization... Do you think I would be at least curious? In other words, the grounds for belief were already dug.. A seed was planted..

While it is certainly probable that Joseph profited from the pre-existant hype about the origins of the mounds, there is no evidence that he used that hype to sell more books. He certianly didn't exploit that excitement if that is what you are contending.

I have other sources that would say otherwise.. I can share them with you later if you wish...

Please do share. I would be interested in any evidence that suggests that Joseph linked the mound builders to the BoM people. If any evidence comes forth, I would then argue that it was Joseph's mere opinion, and was not founded in what the BoM actually says.

Again, I have not studied this topic very much, so it is entirely possible that I am mistaken on some of these things.

Sargon

[Gman]

You are mistaken. I did not buy or read the book you are reading. The book you are reading attempts to link the BoM with the Spalding Manuscript. What I am reading is the Spalding Manuscript. I have already read the Book of Mormon many times, but never the Spalding Manuscript. I suggest you read both of them for yourself before you decide that they have anything in common.

Sargon, I have read the Spalding Manuscript before.. I just never read the "Spalding Enigma" before.. Also I have read most of the BoM before, but not the whole thing...

The quote from Samual F. Whitney(I would still like to know where it comes from) is interesting, but simply doesn't prove anything.

It came from a book by Arthur Deming in 1888. It was an eye witness account...

If Sidney said that soon we would know the history of the mound builders, and if he secretly was referring to the future production of the BoM, his "prediction" was clearly a failure. The Book of Mormon makes no mention of mounds, no mention of mound builders, or anything of the like.

Again, the evidence I've shown previously says otherwise..

I understand. But it doesn't add up. If Joseph thought that the mounds were proof of a large ancient civilization in N. America, he did not use that idea at all in the BoM. Like I said, the BoM doesn't further that theory at all.

Again this is only part of the equation. But he did state that where he found the plates was the exact same place where these great wars between the two tribes took place..

Please do share. I would be interested in any evidence that suggests that Joseph linked the mound builders to the BoM people. If any evidence comes forth, I would then argue that it was Joseph's mere opinion, and was not founded in what the BoM actually says.

I'll let you know... But I'm also battling some evolutionists in another panel so this may take a bit..

[Sargon]

The first of these is found in a statement given by Samuel F. Whitney about Sidney Rigdon and his answer for these mounds (well before the BoM's publication).

"I came to Kirtland, Ohio in 1826. ... heard Sidney Rigdon preach in Squire Sawyers' orchard in 1827. He said how desirable it would be to know who built the forts and mounds about the country. Soon it would all be revealed."

Here is the complete text:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/CA ... 010088-3b2
Do you realize that Whitney made this statement 59 years later? He made this statement in 1885. I read the letter he wrote, and it sounds like the words of a man who is trying his best to discredit the LDS movement.
Besides that, this alleged statement by Rigdon simply doesn't square with the facts. Rigdon didn't even know Joseph Smith until December 1830. And furthermore, as I have already said, if his designs were to exploit the popular curiosity about the mound-builders, he did not carry out those designs. The Book of Mormon makes absolutely no reference whatsoever to mound-building. It makes no effort to identify the who they were, and makes no reference at all to N. America.
It is entirely possible, and probable, that Rigdon was curious about the who the mound-builders were, and it is probabe that he believed God would reveal the matter to the world at some future date. But that date never came. Rigdon never linked the mound-builders with the Book of Mormon. Thus, the quote is irrelevant.

A somewhat similar statement was provided to Amos S. Hayden by Darwin Atwater:

"That [Rigdon] knew before [i.e., "had prior knowledge"] of the coming of The Book of Mormon is to me certain, from what he said on the first of his visits at my father's, some years before. He gave a wonderful description of the mounds and other antiquities found in some parts of America, and said they must have been made by the Aborigines. He said there was a book to be published containing an account of those things. He spoke of these . . . as being a thing most extraordinary.

Here is where you can find the complete text:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1875Hay3.htm
It appears this was written in 1873(though I am not sure), 43 years after the events took place. Again, you have the choice of believing Atwater's memory, or believing the facts. As I said before, If Rigdon was planning on using the mound-builder excitement to sell the Book of Mormon, he didn't follow through with that plan. The Book of Mormon does not explain the moundbuilding at all.

And in case you start to think that this desperate theory is considered legitimate universally by major critics of the church, stop now. It is not at all. Some of the most respected critics of the church, including Dan Vogel, thinks it is "a waste of time".


Sargon

[Gman]

Here is the complete text:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/CA ... 010088-3b2
Do you realize that Whitney made this statement 59 years later? He made this statement in 1885. I read the letter he wrote, and it sounds like the words of a man who is trying his best to discredit the LDS movement.
Besides that, this alleged statement by Rigdon simply doesn't square with the facts.

That statement may have been recorded in 1885, but we don't have an actual date as to when it was really made by Whitney. Whitney said that that it was around 1827 or 28 when it happened and I believe him. By the way if you want to go that route did you realize that the gospels were written between A.D. 50 and 75 after Christ? Also the Pauline Epistles (the Apostle Paul's letters to the early church) were authored between A.D. 50 - 67. Well after the facts....

It is entirely possible, and probable, that Rigdon was curious about the who the mound-builders were, and it is probabe that he believed God would reveal the matter to the world at some future date. But that date never came. Rigdon never linked the mound-builders with the Book of Mormon. Thus, the quote is irrelevant.

The evidence shows otherwise.. Now we will see the Spalding and the BoM's claims together in action...

Solomon Spalding in his story wanted to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews or lost tribes, and that "They buried their dead in large heaps, which caused the mounds so common in this country. Their arts, sciences, and civilization were brought into view in order to account for all the curious antiquities found in various parts of North America."

As Soloman states in his book Manuscript Found...

"The bodies of the chiefs who had fallen were carried to their respective armies, & buried with all the solemnities of woe. Over them they raised prodigious mounds of earth, which will remain for ages, as monuments to comemorate the valiant feats of these heroes & the reat battle of Gaheno." Page 123...

"Ten thousand men from each army, without arms marched to the field where the battle was faught, & having selected the dead bodies of their respective warriors, they carried as many of them together as what could be done with convenience & then diging into the ground about three feet deep & throwing the dirt around in a circular form upon the edge of the grave they then deposited the bodies in it, covering the ground over which they had dug with the bodies & then placing others pon them until the whole were deposited. They then proceede to throw dirt upon them & to raise over them a high mound. In this manner they proceeded until they had finished the interment. The bodies of the chiefs that were slain were carried to their respective armies, & porforming many customary solemnities of woe, they were intered & prodigious mounds of eart were raised over them. After the funeral rites were finished & the armistice had expired, the hostile Emperors must now determine on their further plans of operations." Page 122..

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/rlds1885.htm

Now the BoM...

Mormon 8:2 And now it came to pass that after the a great and tremendous battle at Cumorah, behold, the Nephites who had escaped into the country southward were hunted by the Lamanites, until they were all destroyed.

Sargon we found it!! This is most likely how Joseph got his idea for a huge war being fought at the hill Cumorah!!

Here is where you can find the complete text:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1875Hay3.htm
It appears this was written in 1873(though I am not sure), 43 years after the events took place. Again, you have the choice of believing Atwater's memory, or believing the facts. As I said before, If Rigdon was planning on using the mound-builder excitement to sell the Book of Mormon, he didn't follow through with that plan. The Book of Mormon does not explain the moundbuilding at all.

Not directly mound building but ancient civilizations that thrived and fought in North America and buried treasure found by Joseph in the state of NY...

Again, please read the history on the Hill of Cumorah and Joseph Smith's claims:

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/cumorah.htm

And in case you start to think that this desperate theory is considered legitimate universally by major critics of the church, stop now. It is not at all. Some of the most respected critics of the church, including Dan Vogel, thinks it is "a waste of time".

Sargon

Sargon, the more evidence that comes in about this.. The more heads will turn... I guarantee it..

Rigdon didn't even know Joseph Smith until December 1830. And furthermore, as I have already said, if his designs were to exploit the popular curiosity about the mound-builders, he did not carry out those designs. The Book of Mormon makes absolutely no reference whatsoever to mound-building. It makes no effort to identify the who they were, and makes no reference at all to N. America.

The BoM was associating these Indian mounds to buried treasures and wars.. EXACTLY like in Spalding's manuscripts...

Also Mormons theorized (in this particular case) about the origins of the mounds of aztalan in Wisconsin in 1845.. I wonder why? Please read...

"Mormon archaeologists theorize that the Olmec civilization in Mexico, considered by many to be the first civilization established in the Americas, bears a striking resemblance to that of the Jaredites in the Book of Mormon. In 1839, an unnamed Mormon writer visited Wisconsin and the remains of Aztalan, and proposed that the ancient mounds there were actually built by a people who would eventually move on to Mexico and become this first civilization. This article describes his trip and the evidence he used to support his claims."

http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turning ... sp?id=1435

Here is a picture of this claim... As it reads at the bottom of the picture, "The Journey of Lehi and his family from Jerusalem to the continent of America, in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah King of Judeah, previous to the Babylonish captivity."

[Sargon]

That statement may have been recorded in 1885, but we don't have an actual date as to when it was really made by Whitney. Whitney said that that it was around 1827 or 28 when it happened and I believe him.By the way if you want to go that route did you realize that the gospels were written between A.D. 50 and 75 after Christ? Also the Pauline Epistles (the Apostle Paul's letters to the early church) were authored between A.D. 50 - 67. Well after the facts....

You can believe whatever you want Gman. Unfortunately it is not based on fact. It is based on your intense desire to prove mormonism wrong. The first recorded evidence for this statement is 59 years after happened. You can either argue that it was recorded long after he originally said it, or that it doesn't matter how long after the fact it was that he said it because the gospels were similarly recorded. But you can't argue both ways. Are you going to canonize Whitney's statments now?

Now the BoM...

Mormon 8:2 And now it came to pass that after the a great and tremendous battle at Cumorah, behold, the Nephites who had escaped into the country southward were hunted by the Lamanites, until they were all destroyed.

Sargon we found it!! This is most likely how Joseph got his idea for a huge war being fought at the hill Cumorah!!

This is all they have come up with? Because a battle was fought on a hill, you somehow are able to see a correlation with the Spalding story. Nothing is said about building mounds. Nothing is said about burying dead. Nothing at all. I know of absolutely no Mormon who has ever read the Book of Mormon and thought it taught anything close to what you are suggesting. You are trying to stretch the text to meet your needs, and it just is not working.

Not directly mound building but ancient civilizations that thrived and fought in North America and buried treasure found by Joseph in the state of NY... ...
The BoM was associating these Indian mounds to buried treasures and wars.. EXACTLY like in Spalding's manuscripts...

It doesn't even indirectly mention mound building. The presence of ancient civilizations that thrived and fought in N. America isn't very good evidence for Joseph using the Spalding manuscript. Everyone believed that a civilization flourished in N. America, and rightly so. Spalding was very clear that the people in his story were in N. America. The Book of Mormon is not clear at all.
For a scheming charlatan, as you believe Joseph Smith to be, he did not employ any of the tactics that you have suggested he did. He did attempt to fool anyone into believing that the BoM people's were responsible for the mounds. Clinging to one verse that mentions a battle on a hill reveals how desperate this theory really is.

Again, please read the history on the Hill of Cumorah and Joseph Smith's claims:

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/cumorah.htm

I always find it ironic when critics have to tell us what we believe in order to prove us wrong.

As to the whole Wisconsin cherade, you could have at least shown us the "unknown mormon's" opening statement on the matter:

"We do not wish to lay down our own opinion as being the only standard for the explanation of these glyphs, for this would not be liberal, but when God speaks we will keep silent. But it must be admitted that the above is a very striking representation of some things that are recorded in the Book of Mormon. "
http://content.wisconsinhistory.org/cdm ... OPTR=14961

What does this have to do with Joseph Smith?? So some obscure unnamed mormon "archaeologists" in 1845 were looking for evidence for the Book of Mormon, and speculated on some of their findings. What exactly is this evidence for??

Gman, this very interesting history you are providing. But it is failing to provide any evidence for your theory.
Your theory thus far has been:
Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon exploited the local curiosity about the mound-builders and tricked people into thinking the Book of Mormon provided an explanation for them, just as Spalding had done(although his story was an admitted work of fiction).
You still have shown no compelling evidence that they ever taught that the Book of Mormon had anything to do with the mounds.



Sargon

[Fortigurn]

Spalding was very clear that the people in his story were in N. America. The Book of Mormon is not clear at all.

On the contrary, the Book of Mormon is so clear on it that Mormons have been teaching this for over a century. It's certainly what I was taught by LDS missionaries.

I always find it ironic when critics have to tell us what we believe in order to prove us wrong.

So do we. Unfortunately in this case you haven't actually responded to the point.

[Gman]

You can believe whatever you want Gman. Unfortunately it is not based on fact. It is based on your intense desire to prove mormonism wrong.

Sargon, you should really take the time to examine the evidence. Not just simply dismiss things and claim that it is only anti-mormon rhetoric..

The first recorded evidence for this statement is 59 years after happened. You can either argue that it was recorded long after he originally said it, or that it doesn't matter how long after the fact it was that he said it because the gospels were similarly recorded. But you can't argue both ways. Are you going to canonize Whitney's statments now?

Sargon, the evidence and similarities between the two books, the BoM and the Spalding book "Manuscript Found" is over whelming..

Also by that same token if you want to go by dates.. You must accept the fact then that "manuscript found" was written in 1812 well before the publication of the BoM in 1830...

This is all they have come up with? Because a battle was fought on a hill, you somehow are able to see a correlation with the Spalding story. Nothing is said about building mounds. Nothing is said about burying dead. Nothing at all.

No... Not just one battle but many battles that are described in the BoM. Please read about some of the battles in the BoM in Mormon, chapter 6.

I know of absolutely no Mormon who has ever read the Book of Mormon and thought it taught anything close to what you are suggesting. You are trying to stretch the text to meet your needs, and it just is not working.

Sargon... Well I'm going to have to shock you then... Elder Charles B. Thompson was one of the first Mormon writers to identify the "mound-builders" with the Nephites whose story is told in the BoM... This statement by him (in 1841) was representative of what Mormon authorities were teaching back then...

"Now the Nephites were a civilized, industrious people... whereas the Lamanites became an idle, savage, and vicious people delighting in war and bloodshed... Therefore the Nephites had to prepare themselves for self defence which they did by fortifying their cities and casting up banks of earth round about their armies, and sometimes building walls of stone to encircle them about, which accounts for the numerous fortifications and works of defence found so profusely scattered over this land [North America]. And when the people of these nations became numerous they had extensive wars; in some battles thousands were slain who were piled up in heaps upon the face of the land and then earth thrown upon them, and this accounts for the numerous mounds and tumuli found in this country [North America].

I will next introduce the descriptions of some of these ancient fortifications and military works of defence, as recorded in the American Antiquities, by Josiah Priest, and also introduce a history of the building of these fortifications and works of defence, as recorded in the Book of Mormon... corresponding accounts of fortifications and works of defence there are to be found in the Book of Mormon and American Antiquities... the people whose history is contained in the Book of Mormon, are the authors of these works [American mounds, etc.]... And thus we have abundance of proof from recent discoveries, American Antiquities and prophecy, that the history contained in the Book of Mormon is true.

Again; this history informs us that about four hundred years after Christ, this nation of Nephites were brought down and destroyed by the Lamanites... God stirred up the Lamanites to camp against them round about, and to raise forts against them with a mount, and thus they were brought down. But just before their final overthrow, a man by the names of Mormon took their record containing their history and sacred writings... to come forth in due time for a sign to Israel, that the time of their redemption had come...

This account also agrees with the Indian traditions which I have quoted in a former part of this work. It says, that their forefathers were once in possession of a sacred Book, which was handed down from generation to generation, and at last hid in the earth; but these oracles are to be restored to them again and then they shall triumph over their enemies and regain their ancient country.

But again, when this Book was taken from the place of its deposit, the words thereof were delivered to the learned Dr. Mitchel of New-York, with a request that he should read them, but he could not; thus fulfilling the 11th verse of the 29th chapter of Isaiah, which says, the words of a Book which is sealed men deliver to one that is learned, saying, read this I pray thee; and he saith I cannot for it is sealed. And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying read this I pray thee; and he saith I am not learned."

Source: http://olivercowdery.com/texts/thom1841.htm#pg097a

It doesn't even indirectly mention mound building. The presence of ancient civilizations that thrived and fought in N. America isn't very good evidence for Joseph using the Spalding manuscript. Everyone believed that a civilization flourished in N. America, and rightly so. Spalding was very clear that the people in his story were in N. America. The Book of Mormon is not clear at all.

But the BoM is very clear about these huge battles being fought.. And nearly all early Mormon elders believed that these "so called" events took place in Northern America.. Also the description of the places in the BoM fit the description of Northern America to a "T".

For a scheming charlatan, as you believe Joseph Smith to be, he did not employ any of the tactics that you have suggested he did. He did attempt to fool anyone into believing that the BoM people's were responsible for the mounds. Clinging to one verse that mentions a battle on a hill reveals how desperate this theory really is.

Sargon.. Please read chapter 6 of the BoM and also Ether 15:11 as well..

What does this have to do with Joseph Smith?? So some obscure unnamed mormon "archaeologists" in 1845 were looking for evidence for the Book of Mormon, and speculated on some of their findings. What exactly is this evidence for??

Sargon... Look at the picture again.. It's a picture of "The Prophet's" (who was Joseph Smith) claim declaring the journey of Lehi and his family from Jerusalem to the continent of America, in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah King of Judeah, previous to the Babylonish captivity and they proposed that the ancient mounds there were actually built by a people who would eventually move on to Mexico and become this first civilization....

Gman, this very interesting history you are providing. But it is failing to provide any evidence for your theory.
Your theory thus far has been:
Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon exploited the local curiosity about the mound-builders and tricked people into thinking the Book of Mormon provided an explanation for them, just as Spalding had done(although his story was an admitted work of fiction).
You still have shown no compelling evidence that they ever taught that the Book of Mormon had anything to do with the mounds.

Again, I'm sorry to disagree with you Sargon, but the evidence shows otherwise..

By the way, Spalding and Joseph were not completely wrong in their assessment of these Indian mounds in N. America.. You see, many of these mounds were REALLY used for burial and to support residential and religious structures or buried treasure.... Even today that evidence is seen in these mounds throughout the east... It's just that Spalding and Joseph wanted to reveal the stories behind them...

Please read this link from Wikipedia about the Indian mounds in N. America...

"The Book of Mormon (first published in 1830) claimed that Israelite groups (called the Nephites, Lamanites or Jaredites) settled in the Americas and built magnificent cities (including large burial mounds), only to be later decimated by warfare."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mound_builders