Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!dadla!dadla-b!russ From: russ@dadla-b.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: case against the Book of Mormon Message-ID: <507@dadla-b.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Aug-83 10:58:32 EDT Article-I.D.: dadla-b.507 Posted: Tue Aug 9 10:58:32 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Aug-83 22:46:11 EDT Lines: 66 John, In coming up with a case against the Book of Mormon, the theory you raise needs to answer more questions than it raises. When you say there are "no pro-Mormon statements from reliable and informed who knew the Smith family intimately", it is a contradiction of terms. Those who actually knew the Smith family intimately joined with them and you will reject them if I present them as a source. Those who testify against them only will say that they knew about the Smith activities since they never implicate themselves as participating with them. They have been no witnesses found that were a part of Joseph's supposedly large groups of money diggers. I don't know why you say that Joseph and his mother disagree. In Joseph's most widely published history he tells of the same event that you mention from his mother. You quote from Professor Anthon's letter. He actually wrote two letters that discussed this visit. He was not consistent in both letters. But the question is what are the motives. Regardless of what actually transpired with Charles Anthon, Martin Harris was apparently satisfied enough after the visit to mortgage his farm to supply the money needed to publish the Book of Mormon. You are correct that no Book of Mormon site has been positively identified. But only a very small portion of the KNOWN sites in Central and South America have even been exavated. If you only knew that the Bible lands were somewhere in the Mediterranean area how long do you think it would take to locate Jerusalem? There is information that is showing that the Book of Mormon people are consistent with that area and no evidence has been found that would eliminate the possibility or discredit what the Book of Mormon says. This can lead to a whole series of articles. The the real question is -- How do you explain the many questions that your theory raises. 1. What was the motive for the hoax that you claim? You claim that Joseph was helped by others. Who? And why didn't they expose the hoax after they left the church? 2. How do you explain the Book of Mormon itself? Why would 11 other witnesses testify to its truthfulness and never deny that testimony even though some of them left the church? 3. How could Joseph have correctly described a journey south from Jerusalem with information that was not known to him at the time? How could he tell about the travels along an ancient trade route that was unknown in 1830? 4. Admittedly Joseph could dream up some name to put in the Book of Mormon, but why should they match Old World name patterns? Names like Lehi and Alma have only recently been found to be valid names. 5. Why should he include a style of writing that is not standard English but fits very well as Hebrew idioms as the origin of the Book of Mormon would require? 6. And I haven't even come to the strongest proofs of the Book of Mormon yet. Things like Chiasmus (a unique writing style), Stylemetry ( a computer author analysis technique), and many others; like yearly king festivals, patterns of battle, cave of Lehi, and other recent discoveries. Russell Anderson Tektronix P.S. I have changed computers, I can't send or receive mail from my previous location. I am now at: tekmdp!dadla!dadla-b!russ