Evidence for God from Science

I dont really have time to give a lengthy reply to your absurd claims today. I will be out of town for all of next week, so this discussion will have to be postponed.
However I will make a few remarks.

This all can be summarized easily. Mysterious mounds existed across the north eastern US. People wanted to know how they got there.

1) Solomon Spalding wrote a story about an ancient civilization that lived in N. America, and provided within this story an detailed explanation for how the mounds were produced.

2) Joseph Smith produced a book about an ancient civilization that lived somewhere in the Americas. The book does not give any explanation for how all the mysterious mounds were produced. It describes battles, forts, and burying dead, things very normal for any civilization. It does not attempt to explain why thousands of small mounds were built across the NE USA.

3) Some early saints speculated about the mounds, and attempted to draw a link between the BoM and the mounds, despite the fact that the BoM does not say anything on the matter.

4) To my knowledge, neither Joseph Smith nor Sidney Rigdon ever preached or endorsed that speculation. They did not use it for gain. They did not expound on it in the Book of Mormon, nor in their sermons.

By the way, Spalding and Joseph were not completely wrong in their assessment of these Indian mounds in N. America...

You have yet to show me where Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon ever gave any assessment of the mounds.

Look Gman, you are going to extreme lengths to prove something that simply is not there. So what if some people wanted to link the BoM to the mounds? They were people of there day, they wanted answers. The very fact that the Book of Mormon does not explain these mounds is evidence that Joseph was not a charlatan, because he surely would have seized on that interest and expoited it. But, perhaps to your dismay, he did not.

Sargon

Sargon wrote:1) Solomon Spalding wrote a story about an ancient civilization that lived in N. America, and provided within this story an detailed explanation for how the mounds were produced.

More or yes true..

Sargon wrote:2) Joseph Smith produced a book about an ancient civilization that lived somewhere in the Americas. The book does not give any explanation for how all the mysterious mounds were produced. It describes battles, forts, and burying dead, things very normal for any civilization. It does not attempt to explain why thousands of small mounds were built across the NE USA.

Sargon.. Again it does.. And in the testimony of Joseph Smith he claimed that he found some plates on a hill where a huge battle took place...

Also obviously the BoM is not going to mention N. America or cities in N. America since they didn't exist at the times these battles took place.. I don't think Joseph would be that dumb to make such a mistake. The BoM however is alluding to geographic locations in it's descriptions of various places in N. America. And don't forget that these ancient burial mounds DID in fact have skeletons in them.. Again was was lacking was the stories behind them.. Joseph Smith was the one that wanted to bring these stories into reality...

Sargon wrote:3) Some early saints speculated about the mounds, and attempted to draw a link between the BoM and the mounds, despite the fact that the BoM does not say anything on the matter.

No... The BoM DOES say something on the matter. Again the BoM is talking about large civilizations and these civilizations fought with one another.. Please read on...

Now let's look at the book of Alma where the Lamanites were instructed bury their dead and also the dead of the Nephites who were slain.. And also build forts out of dirt and wood...

Alma 53:2 And Moroni went to the city of Mulek with Lehi, and took command of the city and gave it unto Lehi. Now behold, this Lehi was a man who had been with Moroni in the more part of all his battles; and he was a man like unto Moroni, and they rejoiced in each other's safety; yea, they were beloved by each other, and also beloved by all the people of Nephi.

Alma 53:3 And it came to pass that after the Lamanites had finished burying their dead and also the dead of the Nephites, they were marched back into the land Bountiful; and Teancum, by the orders of Moroni, caused that they should commence laboring in digging a ditch ROUND about the land, or the city, Bountiful.

Alma 53:4 And he caused that they should build a breastwork of timbers upon the inner bank of the ditch; and they cast up DIRT out of the ditch against the breastwork of timbers; and thus they did cause the Lamanites to labor until they had encircled the city of Bountiful round about with a strong wall of timbers and EARTH, to an EXCEEDING height.

No mounds huh? Please read on...

Alma 53:5 And this city became an exceeding stronghold ever after; and in this city they did guard the prisoners of the Lamanites; yea, even within a wall which they had caused them to build with their own hands. Now Moroni was compelled to cause the Lamanites to labor, because it was easy to guard them while at their labor; and he desired all his forces when he should make an attack upon the Lamanites.

Alma 53:7 And it came to pass that he did no more attempt a battle with the Lamanites in that year, but he did employ his men in preparing for war, yea, and in making fortifications to guard against the Lamanites, yea, and also delivering their women and their children from famine and affliction, and providing food for their armies.

And there you have it... Mounds made out of dirt used for burial and forts... More evidence is coming Sargon.. Sorry..

Sargon wrote:4) To my knowledge, neither Joseph Smith nor Sidney Rigdon ever preached or endorsed that speculation. They did not use it for gain. They did not expound on it in the Book of Mormon, nor in their sermons.

Sargon, again the evidence shows otherwise... Even as early as 1830 newspaper reports were being published, telling of Mormon elders claiming that the ancient Old World peoples who migrated to the Americas came ashore from places far away... And that from these Old World colonists descended to all the Indians of N. America.

Source: http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH ... io.htm#no5

Sargon wrote:You have yet to show me where Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon ever gave any assessment of the mounds.

Sargon, I can't keep repeating what I have written before.. 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."

Sargon wrote:Look Gman, you are going to extreme lengths to prove something that simply is not there. So what if some people wanted to link the BoM to the mounds? They were people of there day, they wanted answers. The very fact that the Book of Mormon does not explain these mounds is evidence that Joseph was not a charlatan, because he surely would have seized on that interest and expoited it. But, perhaps to your dismay, he did not.

The testimonies of Joseph Smith and his followers say otherwise...

Sargon, does this sound familiar?

My brother told me that a young man told him that he had a wonderful dream.

He dreamed that he himself (if I recollect right) opened a great mound, where there were human bones.

There he found a written history that would answer the inquiry respecting the civilized people that once inhabited that country until they were destroyed by the savages.

Fortigurn wrote:Sargon, does this sound familiar?

It does to me.... Thanks Fortigurn. I thought we lost you there for a bit... Welcome back..

And now more damaging evidence is coming in... This one comes from Joseph Smith himself in June 3, 1834...

The Bones of Zelph, The White Lamanite, and Book of Mormon Lands

"The finding of the bones of Zelph, a "white Lamanite," by Joseph Smith in 1834 and the revelation he received about Zelph also speaks to the location of Book of Mormon lands.

On the top of the mound were stones which presented the appearance of three altars having been erected one above the other, according to the ancient order; and the remains of bones were strewn over the surface of the ground. The brethren procured a shovel and a hoe, and removing the earth to the depth of about one foot, discovered the skeleton of a man, almost entire, and between his ribs the stone point of a Lamanitish arrow, which evidently produced his death. Elder Burr Riggs retained the arrow. The contemplation of the scenery around us produced peculiar sensations in our bosoms: and subsequently the visions of the past being opened to my [Joseph Smith's] understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains. The curse was taken from Zelph, or, at least, in part - one of his thigh bones was broken by a stone flung from a sling, while in battle, years before his death. He was killed in battle by the arrow found among his ribs, during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites. (History of the Church, 2:79-80; June 3, 1834)."

This is getting to be VERY interesting....

You guys make me chuckle. You really think you have got this whole thing figured out don't you? Oh those poor stupid mormon folk, how could they be so blind??!!

First of all, allow me to remind you of what you are trying to prove. It seems you have forgotten. You are trying to prove that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon used the popular mound-builder myths to their advantage in spreading mormonism. All this "evidence" you have shown doesn't do that at all.

The Zelph story is not a good piece of evidence. There are various and conflicting reports of what actually happened. What they all agree on though, is that bones were found in a hill, and Joseph said they were the bones of a Lamanite. What does that prove?? Note that Joseph himself did not go out looking for bones, or excavating sites trying to find evidence for his story. They brought him to the bones. He wasn't trying to dig up support for his case. Joseph didn't use this prime opportunity to point out that the mound-builders of myth were the Nephites or Lamanites. He didn't expound on the history of the mound or claim that all the mounds across the NE shared a similar origin. He focused instead on that one mound, and on the personal history of the bones, not the history of the thousands of mounds across the country.
What you have proven with this little story is that at least upon this occasion, Joseph Smith was not trying to correlate the hundreds of mounds across the country with the Nephites and Lamanites.
About the hill cumorah:

Sargon.. Again it does.. And in the testimony of Joseph Smith he claimed that he found some plates on a hill where a huge battle took place...

What exactly is this evidence of?? Did Joseph explain how the hill got there? No. Remember, that is your goal, to prove that Joseph tried to explain the hills as artifical burial mounds, not what happened on them.

And don't forget that these ancient burial mounds DID in fact have skeletons in them.. Again was was lacking was the stories behind them.. Joseph Smith was the one that wanted to bring these stories into reality...

Oh good you remembered. So where is the description in the Book of Mormon of thousands of mounds being built as coverings for dead bodies all across the NE USA??

Alma 53:3 And it came to pass that after the Lamanites had finished burying their dead and also the dead of the Nephites, they were marched back into the land Bountiful; and Teancum, by the orders of Moroni, caused that they should commence laboring in digging a ditch ROUND about the land, or the city, Bountiful.

Did you think that by highlighting the parts you wanted me to read I wouldn't notice that the burying of the dead and digging of a ditch have no
correlation with one another? They buried their dead, marched to a different part of the land, then dug a ditch. Can't you see how desperate this has become??

Alma 53:4 And he caused that they should build a breastwork of timbers upon the inner bank of the ditch; and they cast up DIRT out of the ditch against the breastwork of timbers; and thus they did cause the Lamanites to labor until they had encircled the city of Bountiful round about with a strong wall of timbers and EARTH, to an EXCEEDING height.

I don't see any description of burial mounds in this verse. I see a perfectly normal description of a fortified city, a description which has been vindicated by meso-american archaeology. You are scraping the barrel.

I won't even mention the other verses you quoted. They make no mention of mounds, or burying dead. Seems you forgot again what your objective was. The book of Mormon describes digging a ditch, and building fortifications for a city, and somehow you see ancient burial mounds in this??

Sargon wrote:
4) To my knowledge, neither Joseph Smith nor Sidney Rigdon ever preached or endorsed that speculation. They did not use it for gain. They did not expound on it in the Book of Mormon, nor in their sermons.


Sargon, again the evidence shows otherwise... Even as early as 1830 newspaper reports were being published, telling of Mormon elders claiming that the ancient Old World peoples who migrated to the Americas came ashore from places far away... And that from these Old World colonists descended to all the Indians of N. America.

So? What has this to do with burial mounds?? You might want to change your argument from "Joseph Smith took advantage of the mound-builder myths" to "Joseph Smith took advantage of the fact that Indians inhabited the land before the Europeans did".

Sargon, I can't keep repeating what I have written before.. 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."

If this is your only real quote from either Rigdon or Smith that correlates the Book of Mormon with the mound-builders, you don't have much of a case. First of all, it isn't even from Joseph Smith, which greatly damages it's impact. Secondly, the quote is second hand, it isn't even from Rigdon. Thirdly, you fail to remember that Rigdon didn't even know about the Book of Mormon in 1826, and Joseph Smith never even had the plates until 1827. Fourth, you haven't been able to show where Rigdon later uses the "forts and mounds about the country" and ties them to the Book of Mormon.

Gman, I respect your zeal for truth, but this time it is getting in the way of seeing truth. The mound-builder myths surely were known by Joseph Smith, and by Sidney Rigdon. But what we see is a lack of employment of those myths in both the Book of Mormon and in their teachings. They didn't shy from them, and denounce them as false, but they did not embrace the myths either as truth. They simply weren't important to the teachings of Joseph Smith. Anyone can see that had he been an evil con-man we would be able to dig up more convincing arguments for your case.

Sargon

Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon when he was about 24 yrs old. At that point in his life, he had only seen a small corner of the NE USA. He had no first-hand knowledge of the many mounds that scattered the country. At best, he could have known only of the general myths about the mound-building civilization.

In 1834, 5 years after completing the Book of Mormon, we find an interesting letter that Joseph wrote to his wife Emma:

The whole of our journey, in the midst of so large a company of social honest and sincere men, wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity, and gazing upon a country the fertility, the splendour and the goodness so indescribable, all serves to pass away time unnoticed.

The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, comp. and ed., Dean C. Jessee (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984), 324.

This might be your best piece of evidence. If you are going to contend that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon with the intention of correlating the Nephites and Lamanites with the mound-builders, you may want to emphasize this little letter. I provide it for you, so you don't get too excited if you stumble across it later. I also provide it so show you that I am not being dishonest, nor am I afraid of your theories.

Now I will relieve you of any undue excitement.
This journey that Joseph Smith made with hundreds of brethren occured 5 years after the Book of Mormon was published. He was simple minded enough to think that the mere existence of bones proved the Book of Mormon right. Notice that in his letter he does not say that the mounds were proof of the truth of his claims, but that the bones were. He makes no effort to stress the importance of the mounds, but rather the skulls and bones are to him proof of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
Also, this occurred long after the Book of Mormon was written. Regardless of what Joseph Smith later believed about the origin of the mounds, the Book of Mormon, the center of our attention, does not explain their origin.

It is also noteworthy that Joseph said this in private to his beloved wife. I know of no record indicating that Joseph preached this publicly as a means to attract followers. He divulged his excitement over the bones to only his wife Emma. What was his purpose in this? Was he a con-man trying to trick his own wife? You might try to argue that. But that won't persuade many people.

So there are 2 schools of thought:

Joseph was telling the truth. He translated the Book of Mormon by the power of God. He was not making up a story, and he was excited like any other believer when he found something that looked like physical evidence.

OR

Joseph was a phony and liar. He made up the Book of Mormon. Even though he didn't use the mound-builder myths in the Book of Mormon, or use them in his teachings, he tried to trick his wife with them.

When observing all of the evidence before me, I am forced to make the only logical conclusion. Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. It is the only conclusion that matches all of the evidence. Any other conclusion falls short. Certainly you can disagree, but I have done enough homework, and logic and personal revelation both point to the same place.

Sargon

Sargon wrote:You guys make me chuckle. You really think you have got this whole thing figured out don't you? Oh those poor stupid mormon folk, how could they be so blind??!!

First of all, allow me to remind you of what you are trying to prove. It seems you have forgotten. You are trying to prove that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon used the popular mound-builder myths to their advantage in spreading mormonism. All this "evidence" you have shown doesn't do that at all.

Sargon... Again please back track and re-read what we have written. I'm going to keep hammering this home until you get it... I will not stop. Again you have been duped by Joseph Smith.. He got you good but I want to help...

Sargon wrote:The Zelph story is not a good piece of evidence. There are various and conflicting reports of what actually happened.

I already knew you were going to do this... Discredit the evidence.. That is all you can do and have been doing the entire time... How can anyone prove their point then? This what most Mormons do when faced with the facts.. Oh well, you see that evidence is not good or stable or we have already disproven that.. Holy cow Sargon... Face the music..

Sargon wrote:What they all agree on though, is that bones were found in a hill, and Joseph said they were the bones of a Lamanite. What does that prove??

Everything... Sargon... Smith claims that Zelph was a warrior and chieftain who was killed in a battle by an arrow found among his ribs. I don't think he was on the Hill Cumorah having a picnic..

Sargon wrote:Note that Joseph himself did not go out looking for bones, or excavating sites trying to find evidence for his story. They brought him to the bones. He wasn't trying to dig up support for his case. Joseph didn't use this prime opportunity to point out that the mound-builders of myth were the Nephites or Lamanites. He didn't expound on the history of the mound or claim that all the mounds across the NE shared a similar origin. He focused instead on that one mound, and on the personal history of the bones, not the history of the thousands of mounds across the country.
What you have proven with this little story is that at least upon this occasion, Joseph Smith was not trying to correlate the hundreds of mounds across the country with the Nephites and Lamanites.

No Sargon... Joseph stated " The contemplation of the scenery around us produced peculiar sensations in our bosoms." Joseph Smith was clearly there along with the rest of his brethren digging up the past..

Sargon wrote:What exactly is this evidence of?? Did Joseph explain how the hill got there? No. Remember, that is your goal, to prove that Joseph tried to explain the hills as artifical burial mounds, not what happened on them.

Don't forget that there were two "so called" battles at cumorah. One was from the Nephites the other was from the Jaredites.. Also, they weren't all battles either (at other places)... Elder Charles B. Thompson also says that the mounds were built for self defense which they did by fortifying their cities and casting up banks of earth round about their armies...

Sargon please also don't forget that I'm trying to show how this all fits with Spalding's manuscript!!!

Here is a description from Spalding's book of cities with a round DIRT fortifications built around them just like the BoM in Alma 53:4!!

"Near every village or City they constructed forts or fortifications. These were generally of an OVAL FORM & of different dimensions according to the number of inhabitants who lived in the town. The Ramparts or walls were formed of DIRT which was taken in front of the fort. A deep canal or trench would likewise be formed. This would still increase the difficulty of surmounting the walls in front." p. 74

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

Sargon wrote:Oh good you remembered. So where is the description in the Book of Mormon of thousands of mounds being built as coverings for dead bodies all across the NE USA??

Again not all of the mounds were results of battles or burial grounds according to the BoM. Some were also produced to protect these cities.. Just like the Spalding manuscript...

Sargon wrote:Did you think that by highlighting the parts you wanted me to read I wouldn't notice that the burying of the dead and digging of a ditch have no
correlation with one another? They buried their dead, marched to a different part of the land, then dug a ditch. Can't you see how desperate this has become??

Not as desperate as Joseph Smith was...

Sargon wrote:I don't see any description of burial mounds in this verse. I see a perfectly normal description of a fortified city, a description which has been vindicated by meso-american archaeology. You are scraping the barrel.

Sorry Sargon. You are wrong... Joseph Smith claims in his own words that this warrior chief was buried on the Hill Cumorah in the eastern sea to the Rocky mountains. The Rocky Mountains as in the west of the U.S.. The Hill Cumorah is in the eastern part of the U.S.. The Rocky Mountains are NOT in Meso-America... Period.

Sargon wrote:I won't even mention the other verses you quoted. They make no mention of mounds, or burying dead. Seems you forgot again what your objective was.

Hardly, again, it seems that I have to repeat myself...

1. The BoM clearly states that there were battles (one with Nephites another with the Jaredites) on the Hill Cumorah. Plus there were many other battles as well...
2. The BoM states they practiced mass burials in Alma 53:3 or Mosiah 9:19.
3. Joseph Smith and his brethren go back to the top of the Hill Cumorah and digs only a foot deep into the dirt to find the warrior Zelph.

Sargon wrote:The book of Mormon describes digging a ditch, and building fortifications for a city,

That is correct Sargon... EXACTLY like Spalding's the "Manuscript Found."

Sargon wrote:I won't even mention the other verses you quoted. They make no mention of mounds, or burying dead. Seems you forgot again what your objective was. The book of Mormon describes digging a ditch, and building fortifications for a city, and somehow you see ancient burial mounds in this??

Oh... Not only me but Sidney Rigdon, Spalding, early Mormon elders and the late Joseph Smith too..

Sargon wrote:So? What has this to do with burial mounds?? You might want to change your argument from "Joseph Smith took advantage of the mound-builder myths" to "Joseph Smith took advantage of the fact that Indians inhabited the land before the Europeans did".

Ok sure.. And also those lands where located in N. America... Another hurdle that the BoM faces...

Sargon wrote:If this is your only real quote from either Rigdon or Smith that correlates the Book of Mormon with the mound-builders, you don't have much of a case. First of all, it isn't even from Joseph Smith, which greatly damages it's impact. Secondly, the quote is second hand, it isn't even from Rigdon. Thirdly, you fail to remember that Rigdon didn't even know about the Book of Mormon in 1826, and Joseph Smith never even had the plates until 1827. Fourth, you haven't been able to show where Rigdon later uses the "forts and mounds about the country" and ties them to the Book of Mormon.

Sargon, the evidence is in my favor.. Sorry... Smith and Rigdon stole Spalding's manuscript.. That is the FACT...

Sargon wrote:Gman, I respect your zeal for truth, but this time it is getting in the way of seeing truth. The mound-builder myths surely were known by Joseph Smith, and by Sidney Rigdon. But what we see is a lack of employment of those myths in both the Book of Mormon and in their teachings. They didn't shy from them, and denounce them as false, but they did not embrace the myths either as truth. They simply weren't important to the teachings of Joseph Smith. Anyone can see that had he been an evil con-man we would be able to dig up more convincing arguments for your case.

Sargon, I'm glad you said this.. Because I have more evidence that I will share shortly..

I am constrained by time today, but I will quickly let you know, that you are very confused on the facts of what happened. I am no historian, but I know the history of the church a bit better than you, and you just have got some serious blunders in your chronology and events.

Sargon

I already knew you were going to do this... Discredit the evidence.. That is all you can do and have been doing the entire time... How can anyone prove their point then? This what most Mormons do when faced with the facts.. Oh well, you see that evidence is not good or stable or we have already disproven that.. Holy cow Sargon... Face the music..

I dont discredit all evidence brought forth. In fact, I dealt with the Zelph story. But I can't help it if you present questionable material as if it were 100% accurate and trustworthy.

Sargon wrote:
What they all agree on though, is that bones were found in a hill, and Joseph said they were the bones of a Lamanite. What does that prove??


Everything... Sargon... Smith claims that Zelph was a warrior and chieftain who was killed in a battle by an arrow found among his ribs. I don't think he was on the Hill Cumorah having a picnic..

You have your story wrong. Zelph's bones were not found on the Hill Cumorah. Zelph's bones were found in a hill in Illinois, while the location of the Hill Cumorah is presently unknown. We have been over that plenty of times.

No Sargon... Joseph stated " The contemplation of the scenery around us produced peculiar sensations in our bosoms." Joseph Smith was clearly there along with the rest of his brethren digging up the past..

References please...to my knowledge Joseph never wrote directly about the experience. What you have is a composition by someone else pretending to be Joseph. Most accounts confirm that Joseph was not present when the bones were discovered, and only afterwards did he get involved.

Here is a description from Spalding's book of cities with a round DIRT fortifications built around them just like the BoM in Alma 53:4!!

So because the Book of Mormon speaks of fortifications, and the spalding manuscript also speaks of fortifications....Joseph is plagiarizing?? Wishful thinking at best Gman. It is equally as likely that Joseph got that idea from anywhere else, including the real record of the Book of Mormon.

Sargon wrote:
Oh good you remembered. So where is the description in the Book of Mormon of thousands of mounds being built as coverings for dead bodies all across the NE USA??


Again not all of the mounds were results of battles or burial grounds according to the BoM. Some were also produced to protect these cities.. Just like the Spalding manuscript...

So which is it? Are you going to say that Joseph was using the mound-builder myths, or the Spalding Manuscript as his guide?

Sorry Sargon. You are wrong... Joseph Smith claims in his own words that this warrior chief was buried on the Hill Cumorah in the eastern sea to the Rocky mountains. The Rocky Mountains as in the west of the U.S.. The Hill Cumorah is in the eastern part of the U.S.. The Rocky Mountains are NOT in Meso-America... Period.

This is where you fail Mormon Criticism 101.
1) There is no record by Joseph Smith of what he said regarding the bones. There are only a hanful of second hand records, which conflict on these exact details.
2) The warrior Zelph was not found on the Hill Cumorah, neither the one described in the Book of Mormon, nor the one designated by many early LDS in Palmyra NY. Zelph was located in Illinois, far far away from Cumorah.
3) Zelph was not known from the eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains. The leader he served under was. The account you provided is clear on that.
4) The name "Lamanite" was widely applied to any Native American in those days, as it often is today in the church. The title is given regardless of how distantly they are related to the original Lamanites, or if they are related at all to the Lamanites. It is applied to all Native Americans, it is a synonym for Indian.
5) Because carbon dating was never done on the bones, it is impossible to know the exact date of their owner's life. But because it seems the bones were found so easily, only a foot under the earth, they could not have been very old. They most probably belonged to a later generation of Lamanite, or a different culture of Lamanites, not recorded in the Book of Mormon, who did not live in the same region described in the Book of Mormon.

1. The BoM clearly states that there were battles (one with Nephites another with the Jaredites) on the Hill Cumorah. Plus there were many other battles as well...
2. The BoM states they practiced mass burials in Alma 53:3 or Mosiah 9:19.
3. Joseph Smith and his brethren go back to the top of the Hill Cumorah and digs only a foot deep into the dirt to find the warrior Zelph.

1) So?
2) So? Isn't that what happens after a war?
3) See number 2 in the last section above.

That is correct Sargon... EXACTLY like Spalding's the "Manuscript Found."

I don't understand the excitement. Just because similarities are found in no way indicates thievery. For a humorous satire on this excitement, which you probably wont get, see this: http://www.jefflindsay.com/bomsource.shtml#names

Ok sure.. And also those lands where located in N. America... Another hurdle that the BoM faces...

What lands?

Sargon, the evidence is in my favor.. Sorry... Smith and Rigdon stole Spalding's manuscript.. That is the FACT...

As a fellow truth-seeker, I conclude that the evidence is not in your favor. The evidence is a rag-tag bunch of garbled history and suppositions, that do not explain the story near as well as Joseph Smith's real story, which, is backed up by much more solid evidence.
Your FACT unfortunately can't be proven.

Sargon, I'm glad you said this.. Because I have more evidence that I will share shortly..

Sigh...you have already shown me your biggest guns, and they all failed the test. But if you insist carry on then...

Sargon wrote:I dont discredit all evidence brought forth. In fact, I dealt with the Zelph story. But I can't help it if you present questionable material as if it were 100% accurate and trustworthy.

Sargon.. The BoM is practically a carbon copy of Spalding's "Manuscript Found"... Please read it yourself then..

Sargon wrote:You have your story wrong. Zelph's bones were not found on the Hill Cumorah. Zelph's bones were found in a hill in Illinois, while the location of the Hill Cumorah is presently unknown. We have been over that plenty of times.

Sargon... No... The handwritten copy of the Zelph story by Joseph Smith does in fact contain the words "Hill Cumorah." By the way, if you say then that Zelph's bones were found in a hill in Illinois.. This is not Meso-america.. You have been saying all along that there was no evidence of these wars taking place in N. America. Now suddenly there is..

Also if the Hill Cumorah was in Meso-America then Zelph would have had to travel about 1,800 miles one way to return to the spot where the Mormons found his bones. How do you explain this?

Sargon wrote:References please...to my knowledge Joseph never wrote directly about the experience. What you have is a composition by someone else pretending to be Joseph. Most accounts confirm that Joseph was not present when the bones were discovered, and only afterwards did he get involved.

A composition by someone else pretending to be Joseph??? Sargon, is this how they train their missionaries? Just deny the facts flat out? Are you just going to say that it is not a real saying by Joseph? Well deny everything then...

Also Joseph was there.. Just read it. Joseph states, "The contemplation of the scenery around us (Joseph Smith and his brethren) produced peculiar sensations in our bosoms."

Sargon wrote:So because the Book of Mormon speaks of fortifications, and the spalding manuscript also speaks of fortifications....Joseph is plagiarizing?? Wishful thinking at best Gman. It is equally as likely that Joseph got that idea from anywhere else, including the real record of the Book of Mormon.

Joseph is plagiarizing BIG TIME.. With the help of Sidney Rigdon, Joseph stole the manuscript from Spalding. The evidence is overwhelming.. I'm sorry Sargon. You backed the wrong horse..

Sargon wrote:So which is it? Are you going to say that Joseph was using the mound-builder myths, or the Spalding Manuscript as his guide?

Both...

Sargon wrote:This is where you fail Mormon Criticism 101.
1) There is no record by Joseph Smith of what he said regarding the bones. There are only a hanful of second hand records, which conflict on these exact details.

More than that... The thing was totally plagiarized..

Sargon wrote:2) The warrior Zelph was not found on the Hill Cumorah, neither the one described in the Book of Mormon, nor the one designated by many early LDS in Palmyra NY. Zelph was located in Illinois, far far away from Cumorah.
3) Zelph was not known from the eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains. The leader he served under was. The account you provided is clear on that.

So Zelph had to travel about 1,800 miles from Meso-America to die in N. America then?

Sargon wrote:4) The name "Lamanite" was widely applied to any Native American in those days, as it often is today in the church. The title is given regardless of how distantly they are related to the original Lamanites, or if they are related at all to the Lamanites. It is applied to all Native Americans, it is a synonym for Indian.

And thus the name "Lamanite" is never found in Meso-America nor in N. America archeology.. A total fabrication..

Sargon wrote:5) Because carbon dating was never done on the bones, it is impossible to know the exact date of their owner's life. But because it seems the bones were found so easily, only a foot under the earth, they could not have been very old. They most probably belonged to a later generation of Lamanite, or a different culture of Lamanites, not recorded in the Book of Mormon, who did not live in the same region described in the Book of Mormon.

Just deny the evidence.. It is all that you can do...

Gman wrote:1. The BoM clearly states that there were battles (one with Nephites another with the Jaredites) on the Hill Cumorah. Plus there were many other battles as well...
2. The BoM states they practiced mass burials in Alma 53:3 or Mosiah 9:19.
3. Joseph Smith and his brethren go back to the top of the Hill Cumorah and digs only a foot deep into the dirt to find the warrior Zelph.

Sargon wrote:1) So?

Is that all you can say? The Spalding Manuscript says EXACTLY the same thing.. And Spalding's Manuscript was written well before the BoM ever was...

Sargon wrote:2) So? Isn't that what happens after a war?

Yes, including Spalding's Manuscript as well...

Sargon wrote:3) See number 2 in the last section above.

See and read Spalding's Manuscript...

Sargon wrote:I don't understand the excitement. Just because similarities are found in no way indicates thievery. For a humorous satire on this excitement, which you probably wont get, see this: //www.jefflindsay.com/bomsource.shtml#names

Oh, I'm not done by a long shot.. There is HUGE amounts of plagiarism by Joseph. When I get done with this you will see even more...

Sargon wrote:What lands?

The lands in N. America..

Sargon wrote:As a fellow truth-seeker, I conclude that the evidence is not in your favor. The evidence is a rag-tag bunch of garbled history and suppositions, that do not explain the story near as well as Joseph Smith's real story, which, is backed up by much more solid evidence.
Your FACT unfortunately can't be proven.

Sargon you are in truth-seeker denial...

Sargon wrote:Sigh...you have already shown me your biggest guns, and they all failed the test. But if you insist carry on then...

Oh that was a few firecrackers... Watch this...

Remember when you kept saying that the BoM makes no mention of mounds, or burying dead after a war? Well take a look at Alma 16:11 from the BoM...

Alma 16:11 Nevertheless, after many days their dead bodies were HEAPED up upon the face of the earth, and they were covered with a shallow covering. And now so great was the scent thereof that the people did not go in to possess the land of Ammonihah for many years. And it was called Desolation of Nehors; for they were of the profession of Nehor, who were slain; and their lands remained desolate.

And now look at the Spalding manuscript Page 122..

Manuscript Found "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 earth 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."

So you don't see any similarities here? Heaps of dead bodies in both accounts?


Burial mound example

Now here is an account of the fortifications in the BoM.

Alma 50: 1-6

1 And now it came to pass that Moroni did not stop making preparations for war, or to defend his people against the Lamanites; for he caused that his armies should commence in the commencement of the twentieth year of the reign of the judges, that they should commence in digging up heaps of earth round about all the cities, throughout all the land which was possessed by the Nephites.
2 And upon the top of these ridges of earth he caused that there should be timbers, yea, works of timbers built up to the height of a man, round about the cities.
3 And he caused that upon those works of timbers,there should be a frame of pickets built upon the timbers round about; and they were strong and high.
4 And he caused towers to be erected that overlooked those works of pickets, and he caused places of security to be built upon those atowers, that the stones and the arrows of the Lamanites could not hurt them.
5 And they were prepared that they could cast stones from the top thereof, according to their pleasure and their strength, and slay him who should attempt to approach near the walls of the city.
6 Thus Moroni did prepare strongholds against the coming of their enemies, round about every city in all the land.

And now the Spalding manuscript p. 74...

Manuscript Found "Near every village or city they constructed forts or fortifications. Those were generally of an oval form. The ramparts, or walls were formed of dirt. A deep canal or trench would likewise be formed. In addition to this they inserted a piece of timber on the top of the ramparts. These pieces were about seven feet in length from the ground to the top which was sharpened. The distance between each piece was about six inches, through which they could shoot their arrows against an enemy. A country thus fortified . . . might be well supposed as able to defend themselves against an invading enemy."

I highlighted some of the words here in red to show the similarities.. You notice that both the BoM and the Spalding manuscript have timbers at the top of their fortifications? And these timbers (on the tops of the hills) were about the size of a human being? What are the chances of that happening?


Example of a fort hill in Ohio

Sargon.. The "Manuscript Story" contains so many parallels with the BoM and with Mormon doctrine that it is impossible to believe that they are all merely the result of coincidence...

And I have even more evidence..

Fortigurn wrote:Sargon, does this sound familiar?

My brother told me that a young man told him that he had a wonderful dream.

He dreamed that he himself (if I recollect right) opened a great mound, where there were human bones.

There he found a written history that would answer the inquiry respecting the civilized people that once inhabited that country until they were destroyed by the savages.

Bump.

I never cease to be amused at our miscommincations. You struggle to grasp Latter-Day Saint history and culture. I say one thing, you understand something else. Allow me to humbly correct a few of your mistakes.

The Zelph Story:

I asked you for references. You did not give them. Either you forgot, or you intentionally did not provide them because deep down inside you aren't really that you know all that much about this story. From everything I have read, Joseph Smith never left an account of what happened.
By suggesting that someone else wrote the account you provided pretending to be Joseph Smith, I am not at all suggesting that it was an evil imposter. Actually, that was a common method used back then by supporters of the cause. If you are able to provide proof that Joseph Smith left that account, I will retract my doubt. I provided you with the closest thing written in Joseph's hand on the subject, a letter to his wife that doesn't even mention Zelph.
Because you did not provide the reference, I searched it out myself. It is the account presented in an old church history book:

In 1842 Willard Richards, then church historian, was assigned the task of compiling a large number of documents and producing a history of the church from them. He worked on this material between 21 December 1842 and 27 March 1843. Richards, who had not joined the church until 1836, relied on the writings or recollections of Heber C. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff, and perhaps others for his information regarding the discovery of Zelph. Blending the sources available to him, and perhaps using oral accounts from some of the members of Zion's Camp, but writing as if he were Joseph Smith, historian Richards drafted the story of Zelph as it appears in the "Manuscript History of the Church, Book A-1."

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=202

Zelph was found in Illinois. If you doubt it, do some simple research. Im not making this stuff up. Go ahead, ask for references, I will give them. The account you quoted does mention the Hill Cumorah, but it does not say he was found in the Hill Cumorah. Pay attention to what you read.

Because Zelph was found in N. America, is not evidence at all against the Meso-America theory. In all the accounts of the Zelph story, it mentions his leader, the great prophet Onandagus. Well this "great" prophet is not mentioned at all in the Book of Mormon. Zelph was not a contemporary of the people in the Book of Mormon. He came long afterwards. They had plenty of time to migrate north, and in fact, the Book of Mormon mentions large groups of people migrating north never to be heard of again.

Sargon wrote:
4) The name "Lamanite" was widely applied to any Native American in those days, as it often is today in the church. The title is given regardless of how distantly they are related to the original Lamanites, or if they are related at all to the Lamanites. It is applied to all Native Americans, it is a synonym for Indian.


And thus the name "Lamanite" is never found in Meso-America nor in N. America archeology.. A total fabrication..

You completely failed to understand what I meant. "Those days" that I bolded above, are referring the days of Joseph Smith, not ancient days. Zelph could have never even heard the word Lamanite in his life, yet Joseph Smith would have still called him a Lamanite, being a descendant of them, or having some cultural or religious connection to them.
Also, the linguistics issue of Meso-America is not something we should attempt to dive into in this thread, but it will suffice to say that we know extremely little about ancient meso-america languages and dialects.

I think that about sums up the Zelph non-issue.



The Spalding Manuscript

Sargon.. The BoM is practically a carbon copy of Spalding's "Manuscript Found"... Please read it yourself then..

I am reading it. I am about half way through it. You would think that after reading halfway through a carbon copy you would be able recognize it for what it is...yet it simply is not. The Spalding story bares such little resemblance to the Book of Mormon, that the church at one time published the story just so people could see for themselves.

However I will admit that for someone desperately trying to justify their rejection of the Lord's prophet, it often is used as the biggest straw they are grasping.

After quoting a few verses in the Book of Mormon that you think are "carbon copies" of the Spalding story, my reply was...."So?".
To this you said:

Is that all you can say? The Spalding Manuscript says EXACTLY the same thing.. And Spalding's Manuscript was written well before the BoM ever was...

I don't think much else needs to be said other than "So?". The "carbon copy" you claim bares such little resemblance that your story is really quite laughable.

The Book of Mormon and the Spalding Story are both stories about ancient americans who had battles. The similarities stop there. When battles are fought, people die. When lots of peope die, they are buried. So what? Everyone knows that. Does that mean that Joseph Smith copied from Solomon Spalding?? Not anymore than he copied from Homer.

So you don't see any similarities here? Heaps of dead bodies in both accounts?

Yes I see that. I also see mention of food, boats, animals....SO WHAT???
Apparently to you that means that Joseph Smith made a "carbon copy" of the Spalding Story. Is Lord of the Rings a "carbon copy" of the bible? They both have food, war, animals, spirits....


Gman, Joseph Smith did not copy from anything but the gold plates. So what if both Spalding and Smith mentioned timbers on their fortifications?? Does that mean they copied each other? Not at all! Spalding was a graduate of Dartmouth College. He certainly was smart enough to know that timbers could be used in a fort.
You might argue that Joseph took that little detail from Spalding, amongst thousands of others he didn't use, but could have, and copied it into the Book of Mormon. This would be an interesting claim, if it had any support. But, sadly enough, it doesn't have much support. The only way you can even claim that Joseph had access to the unpublished and undistributed manuscript, is by rewriting history and introducing an astounding number of "maybe" 's.



Here is Wikipedia's conclusion on the Spalding Theory:

In 1884 a Solomon Spalding manuscript was recovered in Honolulu, Hawaii and taken to the Oberlin College Library in Ohio. This unfinished story bears only occasional resemblance to the Book of Mormon text and is not claimed by many literary critics as having formed the basis for the LDS scriptures. The text was published by the Reorganized LDS Church in 1885 and a transcript is available on-line.[citation needed]

Whether or not Mr. Spalding wrote a fictional history as a basis for the Book of Mormon remains a matter of scholarly debate. Despite the signed statements in 1833 in support of this thesis, no manuscript closely resembling the Book of Mormon exists today. Consequently, although the Spalding authorship was accepted as fact throughout the 19th Century, today most historians reject the Spalding thesis as an explanation of the origin of the Book of Mormon.

Wikipedia disagrees that the Book of Mormon is a "carbon copy" of the Spalding manuscript.

I encourage you to return the book you bought, that way, maybe you can save the small sum you spent on it. It certainly is worth more than the material written in the book.



Sargon

Fortigurn wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:Sargon, does this sound familiar?

My brother told me that a young man told him that he had a wonderful dream.

He dreamed that he himself (if I recollect right) opened a great mound, where there were human bones.

There he found a written history that would answer the inquiry respecting the civilized people that once inhabited that country until they were destroyed by the savages.

Bump.

Yes, it was written by Spalding's brother Charles. He means it as his recollection of what gave Solomon the idea for his book. No mention of Joseph Smith is made, nor does the "dream" match the Joseph Smith story.

Sargon

Sargon wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:Sargon, does this sound familiar?

My brother told me that a young man told him that he had a wonderful dream.

He dreamed that he himself (if I recollect right) opened a great mound, where there were human bones.

There he found a written history that would answer the inquiry respecting the civilized people that once inhabited that country until they were destroyed by the savages.

Bump.

Yes, it was written by Spalding's brother Charles. He means it as his recollection of what gave Solomon the idea for his book. No mention of Joseph Smith is made, nor does the "dream" match the Joseph Smith story.

Of course no mention of Joseph Smith is made. That's not the point. The point is that Smith gave the same story:

* He had a vision
* He went to a mound
* He found a written history
* The written history was of the people who had previously inhabited the Americas
* This people were eventually destroyed by the savages

What are the chances of these stories being utterly independent? Not very likely.

Sargon wrote:The Book of Mormon and the Spalding Story are both stories about ancient americans who had battles. The similarities stop there. When battles are fought, people die. When lots of peope die, they are buried. So what? Everyone knows that. Does that mean that Joseph Smith copied from Solomon Spalding?? Not anymore than he copied from Homer.

The similarities are far greater than that:

* They share similar (sometimes identical), language and phrases
* They share the same basic plot
* They share the same story about how they were allegedly found

Gman, Joseph Smith did not copy from anything but the gold plates.

No Sargon, if Smith had copied from the golden plates, then he would have been writing in 'Reformed Egyptian'. But what he wrote was in English. We have also seen that there is no evidence that what is in the Book of Mormon was even taken from the golden plates.

Eye witness after eye witness explains to us that the golden plates were not the source of the text of the Book of Mormon, which was allegedly revealed through the 'seer stones' without the golden plates even being in view (sometimes not even in the house).

Only one eye witness claims that Smith even looked at the golden plates while dictating the Book of Mormon, and his testimony contradicts all other eye witnesses on almost every point, and is incompatible with them because he claims that he was the scribe for the entire book except for 'a few pages'. He cannot possibly be telling the truth.

Wikipedia disagrees that the Book of Mormon is a "carbon copy" of the Spalding manuscript.

To put it another way, Wikipedia has an entry in the Book of Mormon article which denies that the Book of Mormon is dependent on the Spalding manuscript. This is hardly surprising given that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.

Look at this from Spalding:

Near the west Bank of the Coneaught River there are the remains of an ancient fort. As I was walking and forming various conjectures respecting the character situation and numbers of those people who far exceeded the present race of Indians in works of art & inginuety I hapned to tread on a flat Stone. This was at a small distance from the fort: & it lay on the top of a small mound of Earth exactly horizontal -- The face of it had a singular appearance I discovered a number of characters which appeared to me to be letters -- but so much effaced by the ravages of time, that I could not read the inscription. With the assistance of a leaver I raised the Stone -- But you may easily conjecture my astonishment when I discovered that its ends and sides rested on Stones & that it was designed as a cover to an artificial cave. -- I found on examining that its Sides were lined with * * * built in a connical form with * * * down -- & that it was about eight feet deep . . . . Here I noticed a big flat Stone fixed in the form of a doar. I immediately tore it down & Lo a cavity within the wall presented itself . . . . Within this cavity I found an earthan Box with a cover which shut it perfectly tite -- The Box was two feet in length one & half in breadth & one and three inches in diameter. . . . When I had removed the cover I found that it contained twenty eight sheets of parchment . . . appeared to be manuscripts written in an eligant hand with Roman Letters & in the Latin Language. They were written on a variety of Subjects. But the Roll which principally attracted my attention contained a history of the authors life & that part of America which extends along the great Lakes & the waters of the Missisippy. (Spalding 1910, 1-2)

This from Smith:

Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. This stone was thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth. Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them. (JS-H 1:51-52)

What reason can you give for these two stories being essentially the same?