In a book edited by Big Dan Peterson titled, "Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon", Tapir John L. Sorenson made a surprisingly unequivocal statement on page 262 that is EASILY disproven by even the most cursory review of books readily available in Joseph Smith's environment.


"Joseph Smith could not have known in 1830 from published books or his contemporaries that an ancient civilization had existed anywhere in the Americas."


This statement is even more insane when you consider that "Echoes and Evidences" included a discussion of Ethan Smith's, "View of the Hebrews".

Jaw-droppingly insane.

One if THE biggest topics of discussion was the "mound
builders." It was assumed by all that a great civilization had
lived in what is now the central united states and was
responsible for the large ceremonial mounds and burial mounds
that farmers for hundreds of miles were having to plow through
to plant their fields.

This is a staple of the apologists. They assume that Joseph
Smith had to have found something in a book somewhere and
plagiarized it. This was something that is mentioned in MANY
books, but more importantly it was "in the air."

Joseph Smith didn't have to guess on anything in this regard as
it was widely spread "common knowledge" that there had been a
great civilization on the continent that had built the mounds
(description of such mounds is in the Book of Mormon). It was
also assumed that this civilization was not the same ones as
the "savage" Indians that the Europeans encountered when they
arrived. In some versions, the advanced civilization was
white. In some versions they were even Danish. It was assumed
that the "savage" dark-skinned Indians had wiped out the more
civilized, white-skinned mound builders. Sound familiar?

Ethan Smith summed it up nicely in "View of the Hebrews"
(published well BEFORE the Book of Mormon):

"The probability then is this; that the ten tribes, arriving
in this continent with some knowledge of the arts of civilized
life; finding themselves in a vast wilderness filled with the
best of game, inviting them to the chase; most of them fell
into a wandering idle hunting life. Different clans parted
from each other, lost each other, and formed separate tribes.
Most of them formed a habit of this idle mode of living, and
were pleased with it. More sensible parts of this people
associated together, to improve their knowledge of the arts;
and probably continued thus for ages. From these the noted
relics of civilization discovered in the west and south, were
furnished. But the savage tribes prevailed; and in process of
time their savage jealousies and rage annihilated their more
civilized brethren. And thus, as a holy vindictive Providence
would have it, and according to ancient denunciations, all
were left in an “outcast” savage state. This accounts for
their loss of the knowledge of letters, of the art of
navigation, and of the use of iron. And such a loss can no
more operate against their being of the ten tribes, than
against their being of any other origin. Yea, we cannot so
well account for their evident degeneracy in any other way, as
that it took place under a vindictive Providence, as has been
noted, to accomplish divine judgments denounced against the
idolatrous ten tribes of Israel.

"It is highly probable that the more civilized part of the
tribes of Israel, after they settled in America, became wholly
separated from the hunting and savage tribes of their
brethren; that the latter lost the knowledge of their having
descended from the same family with themselves; that the more
civilized part continued for many centuries; that tremendous
wars were frequent between them and their savage brethren,
till the former became extinct."

--Ethan Smith, "View of the Hebrews" 2nd edition, 1825,
Poultney Vermont, P. 130.

This was a popular book that, according to B.H. Roberts
"flooded" the New England region. Note the publication date
for the second edition: 1825--that's five years BEFORE the
Book of Mormon

The True History of the Conquest of Mexico was written by Bernal Diaz del Castillo in 1568. He was part of Cortes' party that was responsible for the conquest of the Aztecs.

His manuscript was later published in 1632.

Maurice Keatinge translated and published an English version in 1800.

I was thinking of the Mexican parallels as I read baura's words.

Did senor Diaz have access to any Mayan or Aztec texts besides the Popul Vuh?

Spaniards were not strangers to Joseph's formative homelands, let us remember.

Bera Diaz wrote about his experience living among and later fighting the Aztecs. I am not aware of him using any native texts. He did however have first hand exprience with several native cultures in the region as they lived in the early 1500s.

Another work that was available to Joseph was Alexander Humbolts history of New Spain. This book was listed for sale by T.G Strong bookstore in an October 1818 edition of the Palmyra Register.

So Christopher Columbus and Cortez had already gone down the memory hole by 1830?....

But we remeber them and still have books and writings documenting it in 2014?

Mormon apologist's are cons just ole Joe.

They play to their audiences knowing that most of their readers will just hang on their every word, not bothering to check for facts or substance. They know that these readers are going to believe, as little-nampy-pampy-morons, what the apologists write.

How responsible for the content is the editor of a book like this? I confronted Big Dan Peterson about this glaring error (and a few others) some years ago on the old ZLMB debate site, and he denied any responsibility. Needless to say, no corrections have been forthcoming.

That statement is so blatantly false, that I cannot see it as a mere mistake. I see it as a deliberately untrue statement.

I am with you on this, Tal. Since the book also includes extensive (but dishonest) coverage of "View of the Hebrews", this is a deliberate lie.

I will say it now as clearly as possible, John L. Sorenson is a liar and cannot be trusted.

Is it also fair to draw the same conclusion about Daniel C. Peterson, since he was one of the book's three editors and was advised of this "mistake" back in 2003, but has never made any attempt to correct it? In other words, are editors held to any kind of standard for the contents of the books they edit? It seems like they would absolutely skewer Vogel and Metcalfe if they had published this type of howling lie in "American Apocrypha" or "New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology".

<<"Joseph Smith could not have known in 1830 from published books or his contemporaries that an ancient civilization had existed anywhere in the Americas.">>

So.. who did they think those brown folks with bows & arrows were who they were constantly at war with from the time they landed on plymouth?

They defined "civilization" as peoples with a more advanced culture/complex societies like large cities, writing, etc. In the same book, John Gee examined "View of the Hebrews" and blatantly misrepresented its contents.

Just going to point out that Soresnon's claim isn't only untrue, it's a fallacy.

His argument is that since Smith *couldn't* have known about any ancient civilization (which is clearly false), then the Book of Mormon must be "of divine origin."

It's a false dichotomy to begin with: he uses the construct "either he got it from some other source, or it's of divine origin." That's not the case. There are an infinite number of *possible* explanations for Smith's BoM story. "Of divine origin" is not the default if ONE of those possible explanations isn't true (which isn't the case anyway).

YECers use this same formation a lot. They'll claim there's some "problem" with evolution, declare it false, then say that because evolution is false, the literal bible genesis story is true. Same false dichotomy. Even if evolution didn't occur (which it did), that wouldn't make the bible creation myth the default "right" answer.

Great point!

What a little golden nugget this is, from the reviewer "Wanderer" commenting on other post.

"To Lew Craig,
Just one important note. If you read the Book of Judith in the Apocrypha (only 12 pages) and a few pages of 1st and 2nd Maccabees, you'll see writing on brass plates, the hero cutting off the bad guy's head while the bad guy is drunk, and with his own sword. Other similarities with 1st Nephi, a borrowing of plot elements if there ever was one."

I did not previously know this. Why wasn't this taught in Sunday School?

Joseph family bible would have had the Apocrypha.

"Joseph couldn't have known..." Any historian that researched the subject would know this along with many other possible sources. That means LDS apologists KNOW this! It is a deliberate lie. It does not matter who you are, if anyone Mormon or not, looking at this subject would have to wonder WHY are they omitting information that is readily available to the general public let alone actual historians with inside knowledge?

Joseph couldn't have known, my ass!

Just noticed something interesting in...

The First Book of MACCABEES 14:48 So they commanded that this writing should be put in tables of brass, and that they should be set up within the compass of the sanctuary in a conspicuous place;


The tables of brass are mentioned in three other places, but this reference includes the word "compass" as well. Granted, the context is not for a navigational compass (i.e. the Liahona), but it is easy to see the seeds of inspiration.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2014 04:37PM by Facsimile 3.