Evidence for God from Science

Fortigurn,
As to the DVD issue, it is not meant to be the subject of this discussion. It covers a vast number of issues that we cannot begin to discuss here. You have your opinion, and as usual you do not think the scholarship is any good. I on the other hand, have a differing opinion.

As for the Zelph issue, neither Gman nor Fortigurn have grasped what I have been trying to say.

It cannot be avoided that at least one of them lied (Godfrey), or at worst three of them lied (Howe, Hancock, and Richards). But the real question is why any of them would lie.

You just are not getting it. Noone lied. Nobody at all has lied. They are all telling the truth. The event did happen, and many people witnessed it. There are enough reports of the event to prove that Joseph was involved, and that he said certain things about the bones uncovered. That is not in dispute.

But if Godfrey told the truth, then Willard Richards also lied, and this means that the 'Manuscript History of the Church' contains known forgeries.

Godfrey told the truth, and Willard Richards told the the truth. There was no forgery. It wasn't a secret, it wasn't a fake account that was trying to fool anyone. It was simply a style of writing history. It was understood that Joseph Smith did not actually write it. Willard Richards was an honest man just doing his job. They didn't have the literary standards that we have today, and so they did not include the fact that it was not actually written by Joseph Smith as we would today, a fact which has confused many critics of the LDS church, including Gman.
Now, you can still choose to completely deny the facts, and pretend that the LDS church just made all that up to cover it's butt. Go ahead, it would be characteristic. However, it is the truth and it can be proven, but only to those who have the humility to see.

What is in dispute, is whether or not Joseph Smith left any record of the event himself. He did not. All we have are the memories of other men. That isn't really that big of a deal, except for the fact that Gman has repeatedly denied that fact.

Sargon... You are wrong once again... Smith was there and wrote what he saw...

Ok Gman, then find for me Joseph Smith's personal version of the Zelph event. The one you have provided is not it. It was written by Willard Richards, compiling all known versions of the story from different men.

Smith believed he and his men were standing on the plains and mounds of the Nephites, that they had picked up the skulls and bones of the Nephites, and that these things were evidences for the BoM.

This is not the issue I am discussing. We are not interested just yet in the particulars of the event, we are not interested in debating whether or not the event happened. It did. We are interested in discovering whether or not Joseph Smith ever personally recorded anything about it as you have repeatedly claimed.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did not understand my position from the first. There should be no excuse now. I have been crystal clear. We have no record written by Joseph Smith that makes any reference to Zelph.

You need to admit that before we can move on. I will not discuss church history with someone who cannot admit to their mistakes.

Sargon

Sargon wrote:You just are not getting it. Noone lied. Nobody at all has lied. They are all telling the truth. The event did happen, and many people witnessed it. There are enough reports of the event to prove that Joseph was involved, and that he said certain things about the bones uncovered. That is not in dispute.

But you claim that the things which Howe and Hancock said were untrue. They give reports of what Smith said at the time. They said that Smith said these things. You directly challenge those reports, and insist that he didn't say those things. You cannot say that these men are telling the truth and simultaneously deny that their accounts are true.

Godfrey told the truth, and Willard Richards told the the truth. There was no forgery. It wasn't a secret, it wasn't a fake account that was trying to fool anyone. It was simply a style of writing history. It was understood that Joseph Smith did not actually write it. Willard Richards was an honest man just doing his job. They didn't have the literary standards that we have today, and so they did not include the fact that it was not actually written by Joseph Smith as we would today, a fact which has confused many critics of the LDS church, including Gman.

I need evidence that:

* The accounts by Howe and Hancock of what Smith said about Zelph are inaccurate

* Richards fabricated the account of Zelph which is attributed to Smith

* The work of history attributed to Smith was written in 'a style of writing history' of the day (specifically, I want to see evidence that fabricating an event which didn't happen, and attributing a written record of it to the man who supposedly experienced the event was considered acceptable historiograhpical practice)

* The LDS church made it clear and plain to all that this history was not written by Smith, and contained fictional accounts which had been fabricated by its ghost writer (or writers)

When I go to an official LDS website, I am presented with a document which I am told was written by Smith. I am not told that it was ghost written, amended, interpolated, and otherwise altered by different authors over time. Why am I not told this?

You can understand, surely, that it is your church's fault if critics take the author attribution, title, introduction, and personal pronouns of the work seriously, as they stand, and draw the conclusion that the work was indeed written by Smith, as it claims to be?

Now, you can still choose to completely deny the facts, and pretend that the LDS church just made all that up to cover it's butt.

I have never said anything like that.

We have no record written by Joseph Smith that makes any reference to Zelph.

But we have three written records by other people of what Smith said about Zelph. Why would you dismiss them?

Sargon, can I get a yes or no from you. Did Smith say this:

contemplation of the scenery around us produced peculiar sensations in our bosoms: and subsequently the visions of the past being opened to my 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.

Did Smith say this:

...this land was called the land of desolation and Onendagus was the king and a good man was he, there in that mound did he bury his dead ... the last man buried was Zelph, he was a white Lamanite who fought with the people of Onendagus for freedom.

Is this an accurate description of what Smith said:

Smith ... prophesying or declaring that they were the remains of a celebrated General among the Nephites, mentioning his name and the battle in which he was slain, some 1500 years ago.

Can I get a yes or a no for each of those please? Thanks.

But you claim that the things which Howe and Hancock said were untrue. They give reports of what Smith said at the time. They said that Smith said these things. You directly challenge those reports, and insist that he didn't say those things.

No I have not. What I have claimed, is that the event did happen, but that we do not have a record written by Joseph Smith of the incident. There are many witnesses to the event, not just Howe and Hancock, who also report what they remember Smith saying.

You cannot say that these men are telling the truth and simultaneously deny that their accounts are true.

I am not denying that their accounts are true. The event happened. What I am denying, is that Joseph Smith himself ever wrote of the incident.

I need evidence that:

* The accounts by Howe and Hancock of what Smith said about Zelph are inaccurate

I would need to see exactly which comments are being referred to here. But in general, they were not innaccurate in saying that Joseph Smith prophesied about Zelph.

* Richards fabricated the account of Zelph which is attributed to Smith

How many times do I have to say it? Richards didn't fabricate anything. He didn't pull the story out of thin air. He simply wrote about a true event drawing from various sources and wrote as if he were Joseph Smith.

(specifically, I want to see evidence that fabricating an event which didn't happen, and attributing a written record of it to the man who supposedly experienced the event was considered acceptable historiograhpical practice)

But that is not at all what I have claimed. The event did happen. It just wasn't written down by Joseph Smith. Richards wrote of the event as if he were Joseph Smith. That is all.

* The LDS church made it clear and plain to all that this history was not written by Smith, and contained fictional accounts which had been fabricated by its ghost writer (or writers)

There was no ghost writer, or any fictional stories. It was not an attempt to trick anyone. It was merely the way that Richards chose to pen the history, by reconstructing the event as if Joseph himself had written it.

You can understand, surely, that it is your church's fault if critics take the author attribution, title, introduction, and personal pronouns of the work seriously, as they stand, and draw the conclusion that the work was indeed written by Smith, as it claims to be?

No, it is not the church's fault at all. The issue has been clarified in the exact article I mentioned, and in others.

But we have three written records by other people of what Smith said about Zelph. Why would you dismiss them?

I am not dismissing them at all!!! You are not understanding. I know the event happened. I think it is a cool story and a true one. I dont want to dismiss the accounts. (By the way there are more then just 3). I do however reject Gman's insistence that Joseph Smith ever wrote down his own record of what happened on that occasion.

Sargon, can I get a yes or no from you. Did Smith say this:

Quote:
contemplation of the scenery around us produced peculiar sensations in our bosoms: and subsequently the visions of the past being opened to my 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.

Joseph Smith surely said something similar to this, but he did not write this. You asked if he said this. He surely said something along these lines, but he did not write this account. Someone else did.

Did Smith say this:

Quote:
...this land was called the land of desolation and Onendagus was the king and a good man was he, there in that mound did he bury his dead ... the last man buried was Zelph, he was a white Lamanite who fought with the people of Onendagus for freedom.

Same as above.

Is this an accurate description of what Smith said:

Quote:
Smith ... prophesying or declaring that they were the remains of a celebrated General among the Nephites, mentioning his name and the battle in which he was slain, some 1500 years ago.

We just don't know. I can't say yes or no for this one. We cannot be sure if Joseph Smith included all the details mentioned by whoever wrote this account, or if they were concluded by logic by the author of this statement. The reason we cannot be sure about all of the details in this specific statement is because other statements by other witnesses are do not confirm these details. We simply do not have a record written by Joseph Smith of the event.



Do you understand now?? I am not trying to explain away the event, because I personally enjoy the story. It really happened. But before we move into a discussion of what it actually means, I am only trying to clear the air a little. Joseph Smith left no written account of the event. All we have are statements made by witnesses, attributing words to Joseph Smith that they remember him saying.

Come on guys, this isn't difficult.

Sargon

Sargon, you are playing a strange game here. On the one hand you want to tell me that these accounts are true, and on the other hand you want to tell me that 'we just don't know' what Smith said on that occasion.

This all started when Gman mentioned Smith's comments on Zelph, which were not only demonstrably false, but which confirmed the location of Cumorah in North America. You challenged Gman on this, saying that we don't have a written record by Smith himself of what he said. This, as has been pointed out, is irrelevant since we have other people's accounts.

So until you can provide evidence otherwise, we can safely take it as given that Smith did indeed say these things:

* The bones belonged to Zelph
* Zelph was a white Lamanite
* Cumorah was in North America
* Zelph had been killed in the 'last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites'

I still want evidence that the history credited to Smith was written in a 'style' of the day.

Now you claim 'There was no ghost writer'. Sargon, do you know what a ghost writer is? It's someone who writes on behalf of another person, whose work is attributed to that person as if they wrote it. I still want to see evidence that Smith didn't write that passage.

You claim that it's not the fault of the church if people are convinced that Smith wrote that history. You point to an article written in 1999, and claim there have been other articles. What is the earliest record you can show me of the church telling people that the history credited to Smith was not in fact written by him?

If the church wanted people to know this, why wouldn't they explain it in the introduction? If someone had read this work shortly after it had been printed, would they think that Smith had written it, or someone else?

How can you say the church isn't responsible for people being convinced that Smith wrote this work, when it was printed it under his name, written it as if it was written by him, and no information explaining the truth was given in the book itself?

Finally on the Zelph issue, from the article to which you helpfully linked, we have this letter from Smith to 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.1

Obviously, Joseph and his companions were inspired and elated as they moved closer to their land of promise in Missouri. The territory they were in was vast, rich, and unsettled. The ghostly mounds of former inhabitants, however, reminded Joseph and his camp that the land had once been occupied. As they went, they talked about the Book of Mormon. Joseph called the land "the plains of the Nephites." They believed that the mounds had belonged to "that once beloved people," and they interpreted the mere fact that skulls and bones were readily found as evidence of the divine authenticity of the book.

So:

* Smith teaches that the mounds in North America were left by the people described in the Book of Mormon

* Smith teaches that the events of the Book of Mormon are verified by the evidence of skulls and bones found in North America

* The 'plains of the Nephites' were in North America

These are important statements by Smith. It's clear where he thought the events of the Book of Mormon took place. It's also clear that he made explicit statements regarding the mounds in North America, and explained them by means of the Book of Mormon.

Gman, it will assist your understanding of our exchanges with Sargon if you understand the difference between Internet Mormons and Chapel Mormons. I found that article very enlightening, and extremely useful.

Gman, it will assist your understanding of our exchanges with Sargon if you understand the difference between Internet Mormons and Chapel Mormons. I found that article very enlightening, and extremely useful.

Wow. That was mind-numbingly strange. I would consider myself an extremely active "chapel mormon" as well as an "internet mormon". The author has made some probably pretty accurate points, but I'd say that most of it is far off the mark.
Anyway, I dont want to derail the thread.

Sargon, you are playing a strange game here. On the one hand you want to tell me that these accounts are true, and on the other hand you want to tell me that 'we just don't know' what Smith said on that occasion.

I want to tell you that the event happened in some form or fashion, and that the conflicting accounts tell a story that cannot be fully determined.

You challenged Gman on this, saying that we don't have a written record by Smith himself of what he said. This, as has been pointed out, is irrelevant since we have other people's accounts.

It is not at all irrelevant. It is very important that we do not attribute words to Joseph Smith that he himself did not write. It makes a world of difference in deciphering what he actually thought, and what other people believed he thought.

So until you can provide evidence otherwise, we can safely take it as given that Smith did indeed say these things:

* The bones belonged to Zelph
* Zelph was a white Lamanite
* Cumorah was in North America
* Zelph had been killed in the 'last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites'

We can discuss these topics after we establish that Joseph Smith did not leave a written record of the event.

I still want evidence that the history credited to Smith was written in a 'style' of the day.

I presume you read the article I posted. It says:

The Zelph Story and the History of the Church
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."

If you choose to simply dismiss this information as not enough proof, then there is nothing else I can do for you now. I do not own a copy of the book in question, so I cannot read the title page or the introduction to learn what type of information was included about the actual authors. The book rests in the LDS archives, which are open to most anyone as I understand it. You can mosey on down there and check for us if you like.

Now you claim 'There was no ghost writer'. Sargon, do you know what a ghost writer is? It's someone who writes on behalf of another person, whose work is attributed to that person as if they wrote it. I still want to see evidence that Smith didn't write that passage.

I apologize if I misunderstood what you meant by "ghost writer". The connotation I understood was a derogatory one, in which the writer was a fraud. Strictly speaking, and using the definition you have provided, one might call Richards a ghost writer.
I have provided evidence that Smith did not write it. Godfrey's article is enough. As a historian, he has more authority then you or I to comment, and as a scholar, he has the responsibility to provide accurate information, something which he must have done because it can be checked. If you are questioning his honesty, or integrity, then take it up with him, not me. He is still around, and available for contact.

What is the earliest record you can show me of the church telling people that the history credited to Smith was not in fact written by him?

You would have to give me some time to dig for something like that. I usually rely on others for that kind of information, not being a church historian and all. At any rate, regardless of what critics or mormons have ever thought about the authorship of the account, the truth is that it was not penned by Joseph Smith, and that information is at least available to us for this discussion.

If the church wanted people to know this, why wouldn't they explain it in the introduction? If someone had read this work shortly after it had been printed, would they think that Smith had written it, or someone else?

How can you say the church isn't responsible for people being convinced that Smith wrote this work, when it was printed it under his name, written it as if it was written by him, and no information explaining the truth was given in the book itself?

Im not sure that it is not explained in the introduction. Im not entirely sure that no information was included about who actually wrote the book. Like I said, I do not have the book.

As for Joseph's letter to his wife, it contains some information worthy of analysis and discussion, which will surely take place as soon as you and Gman are able to recognize that Joseph Smith did not write a word down about Zelph. Not even to his wife.


Sargon

Cheeeze I leave for few minutes and look what I have to clean up now...

Sargon wrote:It is not at all irrelevant. It is very important that we do not attribute words to Joseph Smith that he himself did not write. It makes a world of difference in deciphering what he actually thought, and what other people believed he thought.

Sargon please review the events of Joseph Smith from the OFFICIAL LDS website...

Daily Events in the Life of Joseph Smith

June 3 1834— Illinois River, Illinois. While the Zion's Camp marchers were encamped on the banks of the Illinois River, Joseph Smith visited a burial mound and examined a skeleton. He identified the man as a warrior who had been called Zelph. History of the Church, 2:79—80

Events in the Life of Joseph Smith (LDS link)

I don't see how we could get any clearer that he wrote about Zelph...

This statement below was taken from Smith's Journal... Smith claims that he was under the influence of the Spirit of the Almighty and that he found the skeleton... Please read the account again..

Joseph Smith wrote:"During our travels we visited several of the mounds which had been thrown up by the ancient inhabitants of this country - Nephites, Lamanites, etc., and this morning I went up on a high mound near the river, accompanied by the brethren. From this mound we could overlook the tops of the trees and view the prairie on each side of the river as far as our vision could extend, and the scenery was truly delightful.

"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 scenery around us produced peculiar sensations in our bosoms; and subsequently the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thickset man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and a 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 thrown 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." (Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 2, page, 79-80).

Sargon wrote:As for Joseph's letter to his wife, it contains some information worthy of analysis and discussion, which will surely take place as soon as you and Gman are able to recognize that Joseph Smith did not write a word down about Zelph. Not even to his wife.

Sargon, if you want to say that this statement was from one of Smith's followers it STILL confirms that these mounds were confirmations to the BoM's battles in North America... Period.. It also says that they were under the influence of the Spirit of the Almighty. If not then this follower was demon possessed..

Since you have agreed to the Zelph story battle being in North America... Where is your archaeological evidence for this?

Fortigurn wrote:Gman, it will assist your understanding of our exchanges with Sargon if you understand the difference between Internet Mormons and Chapel Mormons. I found that article very enlightening, and extremely useful.

Interesting point from that link Fortigurn... No wonder why there is so much confusion..

"Internet Mormons believe that FARMS is correct and that the Hill Cumorah was located somewhere in Mesoamerica. Chapel Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was correct and that the Hill Cumorah was located in Western New York and was the same hill from which he retrieved the Golden Plates."

Sargon wrote:Wow. That was mind-numbingly strange. I would consider myself an extremely active "chapel mormon" as well as an "internet mormon". The author has made some probably pretty accurate points, but I'd say that most of it is far off the mark.

I don't think it was strange at all. From my experience with both chapel Mormons in real life, and Internet Mormons online, it was spot on. What I hear from Internet Mormons is very different from what I heard from the chapel Mormon missionaries who spent about 5 nights preaching to me.

I want to tell you that the event happened in some form or fashion, and that the conflicting accounts tell a story that cannot be fully determined.

That's very vague. The accounts don't tell a completely different story, they all agree on fundamental issues.

Now here's an interesting thing:

* Mormons defend vigorously the various accounts of the First Vision (how many are there, 4 to 6?), despite the many differences between them, claiming that the numerous differences do not invalidate the accounts

* On the other hand a standard tactic of Mormons when faced with something Smith said or wrote (according to several witnesses and/or written sources), is to try and identify as many differences between the accounts as possible (however small), and then argue on the basis of these differences that the accounts cannot be relied on to give an accurate description of what really happened

It is not at all irrelevant. It is very important that we do not attribute words to Joseph Smith that he himself did not write. It makes a world of difference in deciphering what he actually thought, and what other people believed he thought.

It is not relevant to whether or not he said these words.

We can discuss these topics after we establish that Joseph Smith did not leave a written record of the event.

I've never said he did (though the letter to Emma sounds just like it, despite not mentioning Zelph).

I presume you read the article I posted.

Yes. That's not evidence. That's a claim.

If you choose to simply dismiss this information as not enough proof, then there is nothing else I can do for you now.

Why not? Isn't there any evidence to support this claim?

I do not own a copy of the book in question, so I cannot read the title page or the introduction to learn what type of information was included about the actual authors. The book rests in the LDS archives, which are open to most anyone as I understand it. You can mosey on down there and check for us if you like.

It's available online on several sites. I've read the title and introduction. It says Smith wrote it.

Strictly speaking, and using the definition you have provided, one might call Richards a ghost writer.

Thank you. Now why doesn't the introduction say that?

I have provided evidence that Smith did not write it. Godfrey's article is enough. As a historian, he has more authority then you or I to comment, and as a scholar, he has the responsibility to provide accurate information, something which he must have done because it can be checked. If you are questioning his honesty, or integrity, then take it up with him, not me. He is still around, and available for contact.

That is a claim, not evidence. It's your duty to check your evidence before posting it here. It shouldn't be our duty to have to check up everything for you when you present it. Your appeal to authority is dismissed. I am not questioning his integrity or honesty, I am looking for proof of his claim.

Was any of the work written by Smith? Was anyone else involved? How long did it take? Was it revised or redacted over time? Is any of it trustworthy?

What is the earliest record you can show me of the church telling people that the history credited to Smith was not in fact written by him?

You would have to give me some time to dig for something like that. I usually rely on others for that kind of information, not being a church historian and all.

Take your time, but it's important to know.

At any rate, regardless of what critics or mormons have ever thought about the authorship of the account, the truth is that it was not penned by Joseph Smith, and that information is at least available to us for this discussion.

Why wouldn't that information be freely available and openly taught by the LDS church? I'm still waiting for the evidence that this work was written using the standard historical 'style' of the day. When people read it, would they have thought it was written by Smith?

As for Joseph's letter to his wife, it contains some information worthy of analysis and discussion, which will surely take place as soon as you and Gman are able to recognize that Joseph Smith did not write a word down about Zelph. Not even to his wife.

I have never claimed Smith wrote anything about Zelph (specifically).

Gman wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:Gman, it will assist your understanding of our exchanges with Sargon if you understand the difference between Internet Mormons and Chapel Mormons. I found that article very enlightening, and extremely useful.

Interesting point from that link Fortigurn... No wonder why there is so much confusion..

"Internet Mormons believe that FARMS is correct and that the Hill Cumorah was located somewhere in Mesoamerica. Chapel Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was correct and that the Hill Cumorah was located in Western New York and was the same hill from which he retrieved the Golden Plates."

A good example this was when Sargon argued vigorously that the LDS church has never claimed the Hill Cumorah was in New York, and a letter from the LDS church was shown to him by you which stated clearly that the church has traditionally taught exactly that:



I discovered a Mormon apologist who said the same, and showed this to him:

Since the days of Joseph Smith most Saints believed that the Book of Mormon took place across the entire expanse of North and South America.

This theory—referred to as the Hemispheric Geography Theory (HGT) posits that North America is the “land northward,” that South America is the “land southward,” and that present-day Panama is the “narrow neck” of land. This is a natural interpretation of Book of Mormon geography based on a cursory reading and superficial understanding to the Book of Mormon text.

It is likely that Joseph Smith, his contemporaries, and most Saints—perhaps even most Saints today—have unquestioningly accepted this as an accurate model for Book of Mormon geography.

Related to this view is the common belief among LDS that Book of Mormon people were the founding inhabitants of all native peoples of both North and South America.

Written by Michael R. Ash for the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR), Copyright © 2004. http://www.fairlds.org

Are you guys interested in staying on topic with the Zelph thing here?? I would be more then happy to discuss the scanned letter you posted in a different thread.

* Mormons defend vigorously the various accounts of the First Vision (how many are there, 4 to 6?), despite the many differences between them, claiming that the numerous differences do not invalidatethe accounts

* On the other hand a standard tactic of Mormons when faced with something Smith said or wrote (according to several witnesses and/or written sources), is to try and identify as many differences between the accounts as possible (however small), and then argue on the basis of these differences that the accounts cannot be relied on to give an accurate description of what really happened

Oversimplification. There are major differences between these events. On the one hand, we have the same story being told by the main character, with the details differing. On the other hand, we have the same story being told by a bunch of different sources, not including the main character, with the details differing.
In the case of the Zelph story, all we have are journal entries and memories of different people who witnessed the event. These accounts are available on the web, and they each tell a slightly different story. They all agree on a few facts however:
1) Joseph Smith saw some ancient bones
2) Joseph Smith prophesied about the bones
3) Joseph Smith said his name was Zelph, and that he was a lamanite warrior.
4) Zelph was killed in battle.

What they do not agree on, are the details. They do not agree that it was the last battle between the lamanites and nephites. They do not agree on who it was that was known from the east to the rockies, Zelph or Onandagus. They do not all mention the Hill Cumorah. The account you have shown us does include all these details, but it not an account written by Joseph Smith. As I have repeatedly said, it was compiled by Willard Richards. Godfrey comments on this:

With respect to points relative to Book of Mormon geography, Richards wrote that "Zelph was a white Lamanite, a man of God who was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus who was known from the [hill Cumorah is crossed out in the manuscript] eastern Sea, to the Rocky Mountains. He was killed in battle, by the arrow found among his ribs, during a [last crossed out] great struggle with the Lamanites" [and Nephites crossed out].

You see, Willard Richards removed the exact statements that you are relying on for your point from his original record. This was probably done at the behest of the prophet, or someone else helping to edit the book.

Following the death of Joseph Smith, the Times and Seasons(a newspaper) published serially the "History of Joseph Smith." When the story of finding Zelph appeared in the 1 January 1846 issue, most of the words crossed out in the Richards manuscript were, for some unknown reason, included, along with the point that the prophet's name was Omandagus. The reference to the hill Cumorah from the unemended Wilford Woodruff journal was still included in the narrative, as was the phrase "during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites."

So you see, these details were allowed to creep in only after the prophet was dead. I would blame this on the saint's desire for the sensational in Joseph Smith's life. There have been various versions of the story, with details being taken from many sources. There are few things we can certain of as I have said, and others that we cannot be so certain of.

I cannot explain this better then Dr. Godfrey:

If the history of the church were to be revised today using modern historical standards, readers would be informed that Joseph Smith wrote nothing about the discovery of Zelph, and that the account of uncovering the skeleton in Pike County is based on the diaries of seven members of Zion's Camp, some of which were written long after the event took place. We would be assured that the members of Zion's Camp dug up a skeleton near the Illinois River in early June 1834. Equally sure is that Joseph Smith made statements about the deceased person and his historical setting. We would learn that it is unclear which statements attributed to him derived from his vision, as opposed to being implied or surmised either by him or by others. Nothing in the diaries suggests that the mound itself was discovered by revelation.

Furthermore, readers would be told that most sources agree that Zelph was a white Lamanite who fought under a leader named Onandagus (variously spelled). Beyond that, what Joseph said to his men is not entirely clear, judging by the variations in the available sources. The date of the man Zelph, too, remains unclear. Expressions such as "great struggles among the Lamanites," if accurately reported, could refer to a period long after the close of the Book of Mormon narrative, as well as to the fourth century AD. None of the sources before the Willard Richards composition, however, actually say that Zelph died in battle with the Nephites, only that he died "in battle" when the otherwise unidentified people of Onandagus were engaged in great wars "among the Lamanites."

It is simply illogical to believe that Joseph Smith believed that Zelph was killed in the final struggle between the Lamanites and Nephites. Unfortunately however, many early saints fantasized about it and enjoyed the romance of the story. But, it is not consistent with the facts. Joseph Smith's opinion of where the BoM events took place is still in dispute, and it appears that at one time he believed the battles to have been fought in NY, at the traditional site for his reception of the BoM. It is very clear however, that at other stages in his ministry he believed the events to have happened much further south, in central and south america.
There is nothing in any record to suggest that Joseph Smith believed the Hill Cumorah to be anywhere near Illinois, the site of Zelph's remains. Joseph Smith never believed that the last battle between the Nephites and Lamanites occured in Illinois, making it impossible for him to have said such a thing.

It's available online on several sites. I've read the title and introduction. It says Smith wrote it.

It is sometimes fortunate that we have such ardent critics of the church. They provide us with hard to get information. Would you be willing to show me this source? That is, unless you have found this information by an LDS source, then I am equally eager to know of it.

That is a claim, not evidence. It's your duty to check your evidence before posting it here. It shouldn't be our duty to have to check up everything for you when you present it. Your appeal to authority is dismissed. I am not questioning his integrity or honesty, I am looking for proof of his claim.

It is not merely a claim, but a fact. It is the history of what happened. Not everything can be proven over the internet Fortigurn, as you know. I can only quote the findings of other people, as can you. But I will provide you with another source.
http://www.saintswithouthalos.com/ss/hjs_intro.phtml
This is a timeline of who wrote in the "Manuscript History of the Church". Note that on December 21, 1842 Willard Richards begins recording in the book and records the era of Nov. 1, 1831—Aug. 30, 1834. The Zelph incident occured on June 3, 1834, falling within the dates penned by Richards.
Also note that Joseph Smith extremely rarely ever wrote in the book.

The scribes compose much of the history themselves, based on their observations of Joseph's activities, minutes of meetings, correspondence, and other documents accumulated during his lifetime.

That is the truth, take it or leave it. It has been shown to you now with two different sources, so if you continue to reject the facts it will only look bad on your part.

Why wouldn't that information be freely available and openly taught by the LDS church? I'm still waiting for the evidence that this work was written using the standard historical 'style' of the day. When people read it, would they have thought it was written by Smith?

These books are not very popular in LDS homes and I would suggest for these exact reasons. It was written with the intent of sounding like Joseph Smith, but it was written by scribes. I do not recall claiming that it was a standard historical style of the day, but merely it was a style that they employed, that we do not use today.


Gman wrote,

Sargon please review the events of Joseph Smith from the OFFICIAL LDS website...

Daily Events in the Life of Joseph Smith

June 3 1834— Illinois River, Illinois. While the Zion's Camp marchers were encamped on the banks of the Illinois River, Joseph Smith visited a burial mound and examined a skeleton. He identified the man as a warrior who had been called Zelph. History of the Church, 2:79—80

Events in the Life of Joseph Smith (LDS link)

I don't see how we could get any clearer that he wrote about Zelph...

I don't see how you conclude from this bit of information that Joseph Smith wrote about it at all. It says nothing whatsoever about Joseph Smith writing about anything. It merely says that he identified Zelph. It cites "History of the Church", which was written long after Joseph Smith was gone.

This statement below was taken from Smith's Journal... Smith claims that he was under the influence of the Spirit of the Almighty and that he found the skeleton... Please read the account again..

A journal that was not written by him. Joseph hated keeping records. It was one of his least favorite duties of leadership. He was very bad at keeping journals. He employed scribes to do it for him. He was under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and he did learn the history of the bones. However, the account below cannot be truthfully said to have been penned by Joseph Smith, as I have already proven. In fact, the account you have quoted repeatedly is not even the original account written by Richards!! It is an account edited and added on to after the death of Joseph Smith.

Sargon, if you want to say that this statement was from one of Smith's followers it STILL confirms that these mounds were confirmations to the BoM's battles in North America... Period.. It also says that they were under the influence of the Spirit of the Almighty. If not then this follower was demon possessed..

That is not accurate at all. Joseph Smith did indeed personally believe that the remains were proof of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, however this was his personal conclusion, and is not part of the vision he had on the matter, as attested by the eye witness journal entries. What more evidence do we need then the letter to his wife? In it he tells her that the mounds and the bones belonged to the nephites, yet he makes no mention of the Zelph vision to support his belief. He was careful to distinguish between what he personally believed, and what the Lord told him. In the church we require noone to agree with Joseph Smith's personal views, only with the things taught by the Lord through him.

Since you have agreed to the Zelph story battle being in North America... Where is your archaeological evidence for this?

Clever...sort of like "Have you admitted yet to beating your wife?"


Sargon

If you are logging on for the first time since yesterday, note that I have a I found a site that includes the words of 5 eye witness accounts of the event. They come from the journals of men who heard what the prophet actually said. They conflict on a few areas, but for the most part agree with each other. If there are other accounts by other other men, I know not of them.

Here is the link:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/zelph.shtml

I have read them and pulled out what I found to be the most significant and relevant parts of each account. There are parts of some of the accounts that I do not mention, that may be of interest in future discussion of related topics. But they are not included here because they are not relevant to the specific issue at hand, that is, deciphering what was written about Zelph and his history.
Feel free to check up on my work.

Reuben Mcbride Journal
-Zelph
-white lamanite
-warrior
-under the prophet Omandagus (spelling of journal entry)
-killed in battle
-Zelph known from atlantic to the Rocky mountains

Moses Martin Journal-1834
-bones of a mighty prophet
-died in "some great battle"

Wilford Woodruff journal -1834
-Zelph
-while lamanite
-warrior under a great prophet
-prophet known from hill cumorah to rocky mountains

Wilford Woodruff later made a second version in his journal adding these details:
-Onendagus
-An unclear reference to the East sea

Levi Hancock, Diary of -1834
-Zelf (spelling of journal)
-white lamanite
-fought for freedom with people of Onendagus
-Onendagus was a good king

Apparenly Levi made a later Journal 4 years later, retelling the event, with essentially no changes, except for saying that Zelph's name might have been Telf.


Heber C. Kimball- no date provided
-Zelph
-lamanite officer
-fell in last destruction among the lamanites


These are the 5 accounts given at the site indicated. Willard Richards used these accounts and in 1842, 8 years after the event, wrote an account as if he were Joseph Smith for the "Manuscript History of the Church", using the available journal entries and any other source we do not know of. His account includes these details:

-Zelph
-white lamanite
-warrior
-under prophet Onendagus
-Onendagus known from the "eastern sea, to the rocky mountains"
-killed in last great struggle with the lamanites

Later, after the death of the prophet Joseph Smith, Richards "ghost writer" account was printed in the church newspaper, with the following changes, which were originally in the rough draft of the first account, but scratched out:

-"hill cumorah, or eastern sea, to the rocky mountains"
- "last great struggle with the Lamanites and Nephites"

And after this version was printed in the newspaper, it stuck. It was used in most church history books from then on. Why were these additions allowed to be included in the later printing of the story? I do not know. Probably because it was more sensational. What is important, is that while Joseph Smith was alive, it was not allowed to be included. My guess is that Joseph Smith edited the first version by Richards, and told him to strike out the parts that were not right. After his death, somebody printed it with those parts included, because it was more sensational. The "hill cumorah" detail is only found in one of the other 5 accounts. The addition of the "Nephites" is not found anywhere in the other accounts. It was added by the editor of the second Richards account.

If we were to use our brains for a second, we would easily note that it is a weak platform you stand on. The reference to the hill cumorah is included by only one of the 5 eye witnesses, and is most probably being used as a general reference point for somewhere in the east. Had the hill cumorah been an important part of Zelph's history, it is likely that more of the original accounts would have mentioned it. However, it was not. It is easily seen as a mere reference point for east, contrasting the "hill" cumorah with the rocky "mountains".
But it is possible that Joseph Smith actually mentioned the hill cumorah, and that it was an important part of Zelph's history, and noone at all recorded why. But I wouldn't suggest taking that route.

The description of the "last destructions among the Lamanites" should not be confused with the final battle described in the Book of Mormon.
The battle described in the Book of Mormon would be described by any student as a "last destruction among the Nephites", not the Lamanites. In this battle it was the Nephite civilization who was destroyed, not the Lamanites. Also, the Book of Mormon describes this war as being fought between two wicked nations. There is no mention of any righteousness. Yet Zelph is described as a righteous warrior fighting "for freedom" under the "great prophet Onendagus".
It is probable that Joseph Smith did not even mention anything about a final battle, since it was only mentioned by one of the 5 witnesses. Had it been part of Smith's prophecy, it is extremely likely more would have included it in their journals, since that would have been a sensational part of the story.

I have already explained why the description of Zelph as a Lamanite is not a problem. Lamanite was a term broadly used by the early LDS in describing all Native Americans. Indeed, it is often still employed in today's church in a similar way.

It has been suggested by some that Joseph Smith was just leading the poor fools along through lies and deceit. I suggest that the Zelph story is evidence against that claim. Had Joseph Smith the intention of really catching the imagination and hearts of his victims, he surely would have fabricated a much more impressive story about Zelph. Perhaps he could have served under the great Captain Moroni in the Book of Mormon, or been Teancum, the fiery and brave sub-captain. He could have said his name was Alma, the great prophet and evangelizer in the Book of Mormon. Instead, he names a man not even in the Book of Mormon, serving under a prophet who also is not in the Book of Mormon. Not really the way to sell your book now is it??

One more thing. Onandagus. Indeed it does bear a strikingly resemblance to the county in New York called Onandaga. But, no need to fret, because there exist a few extremely plausible options for this phenomena.

1) The name of the ancient prophet was really, and coincidentally, Onendagus.
2) Joseph did not say Onendagus, but something similar, and the eye witnesses merely spelled it the best they knew how, and used the same spelling as the Onendaga county they were familiar with.
3) The ancient prophets name was not Onendagus, but something similar, and Joseph pronounced it the best he could, which sounded like the more familiar Onendaga county.
4) Joseph made the whole thing up, and was stupid enough to use the name of a county that anyone could have figured out.

Apparently the men who experienced the event recorded him as saying Onendagus, but they saw no reason for suspicion. They would have been the ones most likely to have noticed the similarity, and I believe they probably did. But they were not blinded by a need to justify disbelief, and knowing the true character of Brother Joseph, it wasn't even considered a possibility that he might be lying. Let those who knew him best be our most reliable sources.

The research is done, and Joseph Smith has come out with a clean record, once again. Disagree if you must, and any criticism will be welcome. But this story is not one frequently used by anti-mormons, and the reasons why are clear...there isn't really anything to say.


Sargon

Sargon wrote:It is simply illogical to believe that Joseph Smith believed that Zelph was killed in the final struggle between the Lamanites and Nephites. Unfortunately however, many early saints fantasized about it and enjoyed the romance of the story. But, it is not consistent with the facts. Joseph Smith's opinion of where the BoM events took place is still in dispute, and it appears that at one time he believed the battles to have been fought in NY, at the traditional site for his reception of the BoM. It is very clear however, that at other stages in his ministry he believed the events to have happened much further south, in central and south america.

Sargon we've been down this road many many times before.. If you are saying now that these battles took place in Meso-America... Where is your archaeological proof?? Also why do your Mormon elders say it happened in Northern America?

Sargon wrote:I don't see how you conclude from this bit of information that Joseph Smith wrote about it at all. It says nothing whatsoever about Joseph Smith writing about anything. It merely says that he identified Zelph. It cites "History of the Church", which was written long after Joseph Smith was gone.

Sargon did you even read what I wrote? I went through great lengths to highlight the similarities..

Again here is the official view of the LDS church regarding the story of Zelp and Joseph Smith.. They claim that Joesph examined a skeleton and that he identified the remains as the warrior called Zelph in June 3 1834..

Daily Events in the Life of Joseph Smith

June 3 1834— Illinois River, Illinois. While the Zion's Camp marchers were encamped on the banks of the Illinois River, Joseph Smith visited a burial mound and examined a skeleton. He identified the man as a warrior who had been called Zelph. History of the Church, 2:79—80

(LDS link)

Now here is the Zelph account itself.. Notice the words "I". Who do you think the "I" is here according to the LDS church? Who called him Zelph according to the LDS church??

"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 scenery around us produced peculiar sensations in our bosoms; and subsequently the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thickset man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and a 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 thrown 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." (Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 2, page, 79-80).

Sargon wrote:That is not accurate at all. Joseph Smith did indeed personally believe that the remains were proof of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, however this was his personal conclusion, and is not part of the vision he had on the matter, as attested by the eye witness journal entries.

No he said he was under the influence of the Spirit of the Almighty... It must have been a demonic influence then..

Oh, so now you are saying that this is his personal conclusion.. But he didn't write it.. Sargon.. I have no clue what you are talking about sometimes..

So if Joseph didn't write it then who did?? Show us your proof that it was someone else then...

Sargon wrote:What more evidence do we need then the letter to his wife? In it he tells her that the mounds and the bones belonged to the nephites, yet he makes no mention of the Zelph vision to support his belief. He was careful to distinguish between what he personally believed, and what the Lord told him. In the church we require noone to agree with Joseph Smith's personal views, only with the things taught by the Lord through him.

Its sad to see that you have to lie about the accounts now.. Sargon, we have witnesses that say that Joseph was there telling them about the Zelph account.. Remember??

Sargon wrote:One more thing. Onandagus. Indeed it does bear a strikingly resemblance to the county in New York called Onandaga. But, no need to fret, because there exist a few extremely plausible options for this phenomena.

A strikingly resemblance to the county in New York?

Sargon wrote:A journal that was not written by him. Joseph hated keeping records. It was one of his least favorite duties of leadership. He was very bad at keeping journals. He employed scribes to do it for him. He was under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and he did learn the history of the bones.

Yes he hated writing and keeping records so much that his pen produced the book called "The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith."

http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/

As the website states, "the problem of understanding who Joseph Smith was, what his personality was like, is not so hopeless, but is nevertheless real. For while the Mormon prophet produced a sizable collection of papers, the question remains as to how clearly they reflect his own thoughts and personality."

I think he was under the influence of something else..

Sargon wrote:1) The name of the ancient prophet was really, and coincidentally, Onendagus.
2) Joseph did not say Onendagus, but something similar, and the eye witnesses merely spelled it the best they knew how, and used the same spelling as the Onendaga county they were familiar with.
3) The ancient prophets name was not Onendagus, but something similar, and Joseph pronounced it the best he could, which sounded like the more familiar Onendaga county.
4) Joseph made the whole thing up, and was stupid enough to use the name of a county that anyone could have figured out.

Your words not mine..

Sargon wrote:Apparently the men who experienced the event recorded him as saying Onendagus, but they saw no reason for suspicion. They would have been the ones most likely to have noticed the similarity, and I believe they probably did. But they were not blinded by a need to justify disbelief, and knowing the true character of Brother Joseph, it wasn't even considered a possibility that he might be lying. Let those who knew him best be our most reliable sources.

The research is done, and Joseph Smith has come out with a clean record, once again. Disagree if you must, and any criticism will be welcome. But this story is not one frequently used by anti-mormons, and the reasons why are clear...there isn't really anything to say.

It's even pronounced the same... Joseph was just trying to correlate the name to a known Indian tribe so that it would sound authentic to that tribe..