Conference tecrus::mormonism

One parallel which I think is very interesting is the dates of the Mayan and
Nephite cultures.

The following information is from "The Maya", National Geographic,
December 1975.

"We theorize that the Maya migrated into the lowlands of Peten and Yucatan
about 900 BC.  Who they were we simply don't know, but their pottery and
language relate to this Southern highland area." (p. 733)

"...and between AD 250 and 900 they shaped a magnificent civilization of
soaring pyramids and splendid palaces.  This Classic Period ended in a
sudden collapse.  Cities were abandoned; the population declined drastically;
jungle soon shrouded the mighty monuments." (p. 729)

"For almost seven centuries, Middle America knew the splendor of Maya culture."
(p. 732)

In comparison with the Nephites, we have (approximate dates)

Mayan                          Nephite
-----                          -------
900 BC                         600 BC               Beginning

200 AD - 900 AD                33 AD - 200 AD       Peak of civilization

900 AD                         421 AD               Sudden end


As is usually the case with parallels, the similarities are approximate
but close enough to be interesting.

Ancient Writing on Metal Plates

By Paul R. Cheesman, BYU

Ensign, October 1979, pp. 42-47

                     * * *

An exciting feature of almost any large European museum for Latter-day Saints
is the surprisingly large number of metal plates or tablets with writing
engraved on them.  On a recent four-month tour I, my wife, Millie, and my
assistant, Eloise Campbell traveled through Europe and Asia, from the
Vatican Library and the Louvre to Seoul; we saw literally hundreds of
examples of messages engraved on metal.

Not all of these messages have been translated; in some cases, the language
is so ancient that translations are still uncertain.  In other cases, the
language can be red but there are simply so many examples of the same kind
of writing that no one has gone to the work to make a translation.  Most of
the examples seem to be of treaties, laws, or religious texts.

The languages range from Akkadian, dating from about 2450 B.C., to such
comparatively "modern" dead languages as Greek and Latin.

But in the New World, examples of writing on metal plates are only now
beginning to emerge.  Part of the reason is that archaeology in America
has been important only since the turn of the century.  Since less study
has been applied, less is known about the languages of the pre-Columbian
Indian.  Also, fewer artifacts have been unearthed than in the richly
storied lands of Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean, for example.  However,
as early as 1851, Mariano Eduardo de Rivero, director of Lima's National
Museum, and his associate, Juan Diego de Tschudi, asserted that there were
two kinds of ancient Peruvian writing: "The one and surely the most ancient
consisted of certain hieroglyphic characters; the other of knots made with
strings of various colors.  The hieroglyphs, very different from the Mexican
ones, were sculpted in stone or engraved in metal." ('Antiquidades Peruanas',
Vienna: Imprenta Imperial de la Corte y del Estado, 1851, vol. 5, pp. 101.)

Several examples of engraved plates have recently been discovered in Central
and South America and are under investigation.  the two shown here are
indicative of the treasures that we hope may yet be discovered in America.
That writing systems were known in America can be seen in the brilliantly
colored Mayan codices (manuscript books) and stone stelae (carved
commemorative stone pillars or slabs) that still fascinate tourists today.

The examples of ancient writing shown here, however, give us a glimpse into
an ancient world of complex people and purposes.  We learn much about a
culture when we see writings that were considered so important that the
scribes went to the labor of preserving them indefinitely.  Thus we
learn of the ancient world that gave us the Book of Mormon.

[Since I can't reproduce the colored photos from the article, I will just
give the caption under each one]

One of the tiniest engraved tablets (here enlarged many times in size) is this
gold wafer measuring one-sixteenth of an inch thick and under two inches in
length (1 5/8" by 1 1/16").  Discovered in 1920 near the headwaters of the
Tigris, it has been identified as the Tablet of Shalmanaser III, and comes
from Kalat Shergat, the ancient city of Assur in modern Iraq.  The tablet
itself has not been dated, but Shalmanaser reigned about 842 B.C. (Oriental
Institute, University of Chicago Museum, Chicago.)  In the Rockefeller
Museum in Jerusalem is another tiny gold foil strip from the Roman period
measuring 2 1/2 by 1 inches.  Its inscription says, "Take courage, Gozmos";
such plaques were commonly placed over the mouths of the deceased before
burial.

The plates of Darius I, ruler of Persia from 518-515 B.C. are the closest
parallel to the Book of Mormon yet discovered.  Two tablets, one of gold and
one of silver, were placed in each stone box to be buried at the four corners
of his palace.  They describe the boundaries of his kingdom, praise Ahuramazda, 
"the greatest of all the gods," and pray protection upon Darius "and my royal
house."  They were discovered by an archaeological team in 1938. (National
Archaeological Museum, Tehran, Iran.)

Controversy surrounds most of the examples of writing on metal in the New
World and more study will be required to document their authenticity.  This
gold disc, the only completely authenticated piece [1979] of New World
writing on metal, was exhumed by a 1950s expedition at Chichen Itza
on the Yucatan peninsula.  Found in the sacred well at the site, it has a
Mayan inscription around the edges. (Peabody Museum--Harvard University.
Photograph by Hillel Burger.)  A gold plate, measuring 4 by 8 inches, is said
to have been found in a tomb in the Lambayeque area of northern Peruy; its
eight symbols have not been identified or translated but they have been
claimed to be similar to writing of ancient Cypress. (Hugo Cohen collection,
Lima.)

This eerily beautiful silver scroll, dating from approximately 400 A.D.,
was discovered in Bethany in 1968, inscribed in Greek and Coptic.  Measuring
7 1/4 by 2 1/8 inches, it contains a magical text from a gnosticlike group
around Jerusalem. (Visitors' Center South, Temple Square, Salt Lake City.)

These gold Pyrgi Plates measure 7 1/2 by 5 1/2 inches, and were originally
fastened with nails to the wooden lintel of the temple of Astarte in the
Etruscan city of Pyrgi, now in Italy, about 500 B.C.  The text, written
in Phoenician and Etruscan, begins with an invocation to Astarte by
Thefarie Velianes, the king who constructed the temple. (National Museum
of Villa Guilia, Rome.)

Among the records discovered at Qumran near the Dead Sea in 1952 were two
rolled copper scrolls, once riveted together but now separated.  The
brittle oxidized copper, dating from the second century B.C., was carefully
sawed into longitudinal strips in Manchester, England, then reassembled
and deciphered.  They catalogue a still-buried treasure of gold, silver,
coins, earthen and metal vessels, and various offerings worth several
million dollars at today's prices. (National Museum, Amman, Jordan.)

This startlingly vivid codex is an undisputed example of pre-Columbian 
American hieroglyphic writing and one of only sixteen to survive contact
with western civilization.  It is named the Codex Borgia for the famous
Italian family who purchased it for their collection and later gave it to
the Catholic church.  Thought to have been produced in Western Oaxaca in
southern Mexico in the fourteenth century, it consists of thirty-nine skin
leaves, brilliantly painted on both sides, and screenfolded into a book
containing a 260-day ritual calendar used in religious ceremonies.  The
leaves measure approximately ten inches square. (Vatican Library, Rome.)
These codices have not been dated precisely, but recent archaeological
excavations have uncovered three more.  One, dating from about A.D. 450, was
discovered in 1970 by the BYU-New World Archaeological Foundation at Mirador,
Chiapas, in Mexico.  It was too badly decayed to be unfolded and therefore
cannot be deciphered.  Finds which also appear to be remains of ancient codices
dating perhaps as early as the first century B.C. have been reported from
excavations at Altun Ha in Belize and Cerro de las Mesas in Veracruz, both
in Mexico.

This small gold plate, 2 1/2 by 1 1/2 inches, is named for Djokha Umma, Iraq,
where it was discovered in 1895 by an Arab and acquired the next year by
the Louvre.  Dating from 2450 B.C. and written in Akkadian, it is one of the
oldest examples of writing on metal and was found in the foundations of a
sacred building erected by Djokha Umma's queen. (Department of Oriental
Antiquities, the Louvre, Paris.  Several other metal plates with writing are
on display in the same museum.)

Here is one graceful example of an American stone box dating to A.D. 650-900.
Discovered at the base of the temple of Kulkulcan at Chichen Itza in Yucatan,
Mexico, in the late 1800s, where it is exhibited, it measures approximately
2 1/2 by 2 feet, exterior.  The box is carved out of one piece of stone,
the rounded lid out of another.  In this box were found masonry tools; other
stone boxes containing jewelry and precious textiles have been found
throughout Mexico and Central America.  Many of them are on exhibit in the
Museum of Anthropology, Mexico City. (See Cheesman, "The Stone Box,"
Improvement Era, Oct. 1966, pp. 876-78, 900.)

An especially lovely example of ancient writing on metal plates is the Korean
Keumgangkyeongpan, nineteen golden plates containing the Diamond Sutra from
Buddhist scriptures engraved in Chinese calligraphy.  Measuring 14.8 by 13.7
inches, they were hinged and could be folded on top of each other, then
secured by two golden bands wrapped around the plates.  During the eighth
century, they were placed in a bronze box and buried under a five-story
pagoda at Wanggungni, Chollabuk province, South Korea, where they were
discovered in December 1965. (National Museum, Seoul.)

This bronze plaque, carefully inscribed on both sides, contains the laws
for distributing land dating from the sixth century B.C.  It was discovered
near Naupaktos, Greece.  Measuring 1 1/2 by 2 feet, it was clearly designed
to be displayed in a public place.  It is on display in the National
Archaeological Museum, Athens, where are also displayed some of more than
400 small lead plates dating from the fourth century B.C. Discovered in an
earthenware vessel near Styria, Greece, in 1860, they seem to be private
letters, the oldest Greek letters extant.

Hugh Nibley in his book "An Approach to the Book of Mormon" briefly discussed
the travels of Lehi in the wilderness.


Rate of March
-------------

Lehi's party is described as moving through the desert for a few days (three
or four, one would estimate) and then camping "for the space of a time."
This is exactly the way the Arabs move.  Caravan speeds run between two and
one-quarter and three and nine-tenths miles an hour, thirty miles being,
according to Cheesman, "a good average" for the day, and sixty miles being
the absolute maximum."  "The usual estimate for a good day's march is
reckoned by Arab writers at between twenty-eight and thirty miles; however,
in special or favorable circumstances it may be nearly forty." On the other
hand, a day's slow journey "for an ass-nomad, moving much slower than
camel-riders, is twenty miles." (p. 193, his footnotes are omitted)


Length in Camp
--------------

The number of days spent camping at any one place varies [with the Arabs] (as
in the Book of Mormon) with circumstances.  "From ten to twelve days is the
average time a Bedouin encampment of ordinary size will remain on the same
ground," according to Jennings Bramley, who, however, observes, "I have known
them to stay in one spot for as long as five or six months."  The usual thing
is to camp as long as possible in one place until "it is soiled by the beasts,
and the multiplication of fleas becomes intolerable, and the surroundings
afford no more pasturage, (then) the tents are pulled down and the men 
decamp."  "On the Syrian and Arabic plain," according to Burckhardt "the
Bedouins encamp in summer...near wells, where they remain often for a whole
month."  Lehi's time schedule thus seems to be a fairly normal one, and the
eight years he took to cross Arabia argue neither very fast nor very slow
progress--the Beni Hilal took twenty seven years to go a not much greater
distance.  After reaching the seashore Lehi's people simply camped there "for
the space of many days," until a revelation again put them in motion.
(pp. 193-194, his footnotes are omitted)


The Desert Route
----------------

It is obvious that the party went down the eastern and not the western
shore of the Red Sea (as some have suggested) from the fact that they
changed their course and turned east at the nineteenth parallel of latitude,
and "...did travel nearly eastward from that time forth...," passing
through the worst desert of all, where they "...did travel and wade through 
much affliction...," and "...did live upon raw meat in the wilderness...."
(1 Ne. 17:1-2)  Had the party journeyed on the west coast of the Red Sea,
they would have had only water to the east of them at the 19th parallel and
for hundreds of miles to come.  But why the 19th parallel?  Because Joseph
Smith is reliably reported to have made an inspired statement to that
effect.  He did not know, of course, and nobody knew until the 1930's, that only
by taking a "nearly eastward" direction from that point could Lehi have
reached the one place where he could find the rest and the materials necessary
to prepare for his long sea voyage.

Of the Qara Mountains which lie in that limited sector of the coast of
South Arabia which Lehi must have reached if he turned east at the 19th
parallel, Bertram Thomas, one of the few Europeans who has ever seen them,
writes:

    What a glorious place!  Mountains three thousand feet high basking above a
    tropical ocean, their seaward slopes velvety with waving jungle, their
    roofs fragrant with rolling yellow meadows, beyond which the mountains
    slope northwards to a red sandstone steppe...Great was my delight when
    in 1928 I suddenly came upon it from out of the arid wastes of the southern
    borderlands.

As to the terrible southeastern desert, "The Empty Quarter," which seems from
Nephi's account to have been the most utter desolation of all, Burton could
write as late as 1852:

    Of Rub'a al-Khali I have heard enough, from credible relators, to conclude
    that its horrid depths swarm with a large and half-starving population;
    that it abounds in Wadys, valleys, gullies and ravines, that the land is
    open to the adventurous travelor.

The best western authority on Arabia was thus completely wrong about the whole
nature of the great southeast quarter a generation after the Book of Mormon
appeared, and it was not until 1930 that the world knew that the country in
which Lehi's people were said to have suffered the most is actually the worst
and most repelling desert on earth. (pp. 199-200)


Eating Meat
-----------

Nephi vividly remembers the eating of raw meat by his people in the desert and
its salutary effect on the women, who "did give plenty of suck for  their
children, and were strong, yea, even like unto the men;..." (1 Ne. 17:2)
"Throughout the desert, writes Burckhardt "when a sheep or goat is killed, the
persons present often eat the liver and kidney raw, adding to it a little
salt.  Some Arabs of Yemen are said to eat raw not only those parts, but
likewise whole slices of flesh; thus resembling the Abyssinians and the
Druses of Lebanon, who frequently indulge in raw mean, the latter to my own
certain knowledge."  Nilus, writing fourteen centuries earlier, tells how the
Bedouin of the Tih live on the flesh of wild animals, failing which "they
slaughter a camel, one of their beasts of burden, and nourish themselves
like animals from the raw meat," or else scorch the flesh quickly in a small
fire to soften it sufficiently not to have to gnaw it "like dogs."  Only too
well does this state of things match the grim economy of Lehi: "...they did
suffer much for want of food,..." (1 Ne. 16:19) "...we did live upon raw
meat in the wilderness...." (1 Ne. 17:2)  (pp. 198-199, his footnotes omitted)

New Developments in Book of Mormon Research
(Ensign, February 1988, p. 12)

"John W. Welch:  For the last seven years I have worked to understand the
technical legal aspects of ancient Near Eastern laws and the administration
of justice in ancient Israel.

"The Book of Mormon compares favorably with discoveries regarding the law of
the ancient Near East.  We find detailed reports of the trials of Abinadi,
Korihor, Nehor, and others.  The book gives a technically accurate account,
according to Near Eastern law, of the execution of Zemnarihah in 3 Nephi 4.

"In the ancient world, there was a significant distinction between a thief,
whole stole property from one of his neighbors, and a robber, who was a
highwayman living in bands outside of settled communities.  The Book of
Mormon is consistent in its use of the terms 'thieves' and 'robbers'.  Thus,
the Gadianton robbers are never called thieves, always robbers.  The King
James translators, however, rendered the Greek and Hebrew words for 'thief'
and 'robber' indiscriminately since in English Common Law the same
distinction did not exist."

John W. Welch is president of FARMS, a professor law and a director of
the special projects area for the Religious Studies Center at BYU.

FARMS is (I hope I have this right) the Foundation of Archaeological Research
and Mormon Studies.

New Developments in Book of Mormon Research
(Ensign, February 1988, p. 12-13)

"Paul Y. Hoskisson: In the trial of Abinadi (Mosiah 17), why does King Noah
become afraid "that the judgments of God would come upon him" (v. 11) when
Abinadi had already been convicted of a capital crime by Noah's court?  One
reason may be that Noah's court, corrupt as it was, still operated under the
guise of ancient Near Eastern law.  One aspect of this legal system, trial by
ordeal, may explain Noah's behavior.  If a case came down to one person's word
against another's, the case could not be dismissed but had to be resolved
through trial by ordeal.

"The accused person, by winning the ordeal, was proven innocent, and the accuser
would become guilty of bearing false witness and would suffer the punishment
for the crime he falsely charged.   (See Deut. 19:16-19.)  Abinadi had been
accused of a capital crime, so he proposed such a trial: They could put him
to death, but he would not take back his words.  (See Mosiah 17:10.)  By dying
without recanting, Abinadi would win the trial by ordeal and thus prove that
he was telling the truth.

"At this point, Noah refused the trial by ordeal and would have released 
Abinadi had it not been for the priests' words, 'He has reviled the king'
(Mosiah 17:12)--a treasonable offense--which stirred the king's anger.  Instead,
the king delivered him up to be slain, and Abinadi was tortured with scourging
and was killed by fire, without taking back his words.  In the process of
winning the trial by ordeal, Abinadi could prophesy that Noah and the other
accusers would therefore suffer, as he did, death by fire."

Paul Y. Hoskisson is assistant professor of ancient scriptures at BYU.

New Developments in Book of Mormon Research
(Ensign, February 1988, p. 13-14)

"Paul Y. Hoskisson: While studying Near Eastern languages, I discerned a
Semitic flavor in the Book of Mormon that was foreign to English.  For
instance, it is not common in English to use cognate accusatives; that is,
using objects of the verb that are derived from the same root, such as
'sing a song' or 'live a good life.'  English contains a few cognate
accusatives because no acceptable synonyms are available, but on the whole,
English usually avoids them.  The Book of Mormon uses them quite often--for
example, 'I have dreamed a dream' (1 Ne. 3:2) and 'I did teach my people to
build buildings' (2 Ne. 5:15).  This frequent usage is indicative of the
book's Near Eastern heritage."

Paul Y. Hoskisson is assistant professor of ancient scriptures at BYU.

Nibley discussed Lehi's giving names to the places they visited ("An Approach
to the Book of Mormon", pp. 67-68)

*****************

Lehi's intimacy with desert practices becomes apparent right at the outset
of his journey, not only in the skillful way he managed things but also
in the quaint and peculiar practices he observed, such as those applying to
the naming of places in the desert.

The stream at which he made his first camp Lehi named after his eldest son;
the valley, after his second son (1 Ne. 2:8)  The oasis at which his
party made their next important camp "...we did call...Shazer."
(1 Ne. 16:13)  The fruitful land by the sea "...we called Bountiful," while
the sea itself "...we called Irreantum...." (1 Ne. 17:5)

By what right do these people rename streams and valleys to suit themselves?
By the immemorial custom of the desert, to be sure.  Among the laws "which
no Bedouin would dream of transgressing" the first, according to 
Jennings-Bramley, is that "any water you may discover, either in your own
territory or in the territory of another tribe, is named after you."  So
it happens that in Arabia a great 'wadi' (valley) will have different names
at different points along its course, a respectable number of names being
"all used for one and the same valley.  One and the same place may have
several names, and the 'wadi' running close to the same, or the mountain
connected with it, will naturally be called differently by different
clans," according to Canaan, who tells how the Arabs "often coin a new
name for a locality for which they have never used a proper name, or whose
name they do not know," the name given being usually that of some person.

This confusing custom of renaming everything on the spot seems to go back
to the earliest times, and "probably, as often or not, the Israelites named
for themselves their own camps, or unconsciously co-founded a native
name in their carelessness."  Yet in spite of its undoubted antiquity, only
the most recent explorers have commented on this strange practice, which
seems to have escaped the notice of travelers until explorers in our own
times started to make official maps.

Even more whimsical and senseless to a westerner must appear the behavior
of Lehi in naming a river after one son and its valley after another.  But
the Arabs don't think that way, for Thomas reports from the south country
that "as is commonly the case in these mountains, the water bears a different
name from the wadi."  Likewise, the Book of Mormon follows the Arabic system
of designating Lehi's camp not by the name of the river by which it stood
(for rivers may easily dry up) but rather by the name of the valley. 
(1 Ne. 10:16; 16:6)

================================================================================
Note 145.21           REPLIES TO NOTE 80.6, BoM as History              21 of 21
RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter"                      148 lines  23-AUG-1988 15:38
                              -< Rivers of Water >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the question of rivers in Arabia, as it relates to the Book of Mormon
account of Lehi's family as they came upon a river that Lehi named after his
son, Laman, Hugh Nibley, wrote the following: 
                               
    Rivers or no rivers?
    --------------------
    
    Before leaving the subject of waters, it would be well to note that
    Nephi's mention of a river in a most desolate part of Arabia has caused
    a good deal of quite unnecessary eyebrow-raising. Though Hogarth says
    that Arabia "probably never had a true river in all its immense area,"
    (Footnote 54) later authorities, including Philby, are convinced that
    the peninsula has supported some quite respectable rivers even in
    historic times. 
    
    Spring of the Year
    ------------------
    
    The point to notice, however, is that Lehi made his discovery in the
    spring of the year, for Nephi's story begins "in the commencement of
    the first year of the reign of Zedekiah," (1:4) and moves very rapidly;
    with the Jews and "in the Bible throughout the 'first month' always
    refers to the first spring month." (Footnote 55) In the spring the
    desert mountains are full of rushing torrents. 
    
    "Rivers of Waters" = Dry Rivers
    -------------------------------
    
    The very fact that Nephi uses the term "a river of water," to say
    nothing of Lehi's ecstasies at the sight of it, shows that they are
    used to thinking in terms of *dry* rivers -- the "rivers of sand" of
    the East (Footnote 56). The Biblical expression "rivers of water"
    illustrates the point nicely, for the word for "river" in this case is
    none of the conventional ones but the rare *apheg*, meaning gully or
    channel; in one of the three instances where "rivers of waters" are
    mentioned in the Bible, the river is actually dried up (Joel 1:20), in
    another they contain not water but tears (Joel 3:18)! and in the third
    (Song 5:12) the proper rendering, as in all modern translations, is
    "water-brooks." One only speaks of "rivers of water" in a country where
    rivers do not run all the time. But in the spring it is by no means
    unusual to find rivers in the regions through which Lehi was moving, as
    a few examples will show. 
                              
    Examples of Arabian Rivers
    --------------------------
    
    "We...descended...into Wady Waleh. Here was a beautiful seil, quite a
    little river, dashing over the rocky bed and filled with fish.... The
    stream is a very pretty one... bordered by thickets of flowering
    oleaders. Here and there it narrows into a deep rushing torrent...."
    (Footnote 57) Describing the great wall that runs, like our Hurricane
    fault in Utah, all along the east side of the Dead Sea, the Arabah, and
    the Red Sea, an earlier traveler says: "Farther south the country is
    absolutely impassable, as huge gorges one thousand to fifteen hundred
    feet deep and nearly a mile wide in some places [compare Lehi's "awful
    chasm"!] are broken by the great torrents flowing in winter over
    perpendicular precipices into the sea." (Footnote 58) The sea is the
    Dead Sea, but the same conditions continue all down the great wall to
    "the borders which are near the Red Sea." One is reminded of how
    impressed Lehi was when he saw the river of Laman "flowing into the
    fountain of the Red Sea." On the desert road to Petra in the springtime
    "there are several broad streams to pass, the fording of which creates
    a pleasant excitement." (Footnote 59) A party traveling farther north
    reports, "we presently came upon the deep Wady 'Allan, which here cuts
    the plain in two. How delightful was the splash and gurgle of the
    living water rushing over its rocky bed in the fierce heat of the
    Syrian day!" (Footnote 60) 
    
    Given the right season of the year, then -- and the Book of Mormon is
    obliging enough to give it -- one need not be surprised at rivers in
    northwestern Arabia. It was this seasonal phenomenon that led Ptolemy
    to place a river between Yambu and Meccah with perfect correctness.
    (Footnote 61) 
                               
    Canal or River?
    ---------------
    
    That invaluable researcher and indefatigable sleuth, Ariel L. Crowley,
    has suggested with considerable astuteness that the river of Laman was
    a very different kind of stream from the "rivers of water" of which we
    have been speaking, being nothing less than Necho's canal from the Nile
    to the Red Sea. (Footnote 62) The greater part of Brother Crowley's
    study is devoted to proving that there was such a canal, but that is no
    issue, since it is not disputed. What we cannot believe is that the big
    ditch was Laman's river, and that for a number of reasons of which we
    need here give only two. 
    
    1) While noting that Nephi's account of the exodus "is so precisely
    worded that it bears the stamp of deliberate, careful phrasing,"
    Crowley fails to note that nothing is more precise and specific than
    Nephi's report on the direction of the march, and that, as we have
    seen, he never mentions a westerly direction, which must have been
    taken to reach the place. Brother Crowley assumes that "into the
    wilderness" means "by the Wilderness Way" to Egypt, first "for the sake
    of hypothesis," then, without proof, as a fact. There is no expression
    commoner in the East than "into the wilderness," which of course is not
    restricted to any such area. The last place in the world to flee from
    the notice of men would be to the border of Egypt, fortified and
    closely guarded (see the Story of Sinuhe); and Lehi as a member of the
    anti-Egyptian party would be the last man in the world to seek refuge
    in Egypt. 
    
    2) Crowley calls Necho's canal a "mighty stream," and says that it lay
    "at the ancient crossroads of continents, perhaps as well-known as any
    place on earth in 600 B.C." Then why wasn't it known to Lehi? It was
    the greatest engineering triumph of the age, the most important purely
    commercial waterway in the world; it lay astride the most traveled
    highway of antiquity if not of history; reached by a few days' journey
    from Jerusalem over a level coastal plain, it was the only great river
    anywhere near Jerusalem except for the Nile of which it was a branch,
    and yet "the stream was *unknown* to Lehi (!), otherwise it was
    improbable that he would have given it a new name. In this very fact,"
    says Crowley, "lies confirmation of the recent creation of the stream."
    Just how long does it take news to travel in the East? The canal was at
    least ten years old, it had taken years to build, a wonder of the
    world, an inestimable boon to world trade, less than two hundred miles
    from Lehi's doorstep by a main highway, and yet at a time of ceaseless
    and feverish coming and going between Egypt and Palestine, neither
    Lehi, the great merchant with his sound Egyptian education, nor his
    enterprising and ambitious sons, had ever heard of it! It is impossible
    to believe that Lehi did not know that if one traveled towards Egypt
    and came across a *mighty* stream in a perfectly empty desert, it would
    not be some unknown and undiscovered watercourse but really quite an
    important one. If anyone knew about Necho's canal, it was Lehi. But we
    agree with Crowley that the river of Laman was obviously *not* known to
    him. Therefore the two cannot have been the same. "No river answering
    the description of Nephi's could have escaped historical notice in
    profane works," says Crowley. Why not? It escaped Lehi's notice,
    steeped as he was in the lore of Egyptians and Jews. It cannot
    therefore have been an important stream, let alone one of the most
    remarkable on earth, or Lehi would have known about it. Nor does Nephi
    ever say or imply that it was a great river; it was not a waterway at
    all, but a "river of water," which is a very different thing. 
    
    Footnotes:
    
    54 Hogarth, Penetration of Arabia, p.3
    55 Yahuda, Accuracy of the bible, p.201
    56 Cf. Burton, Pilg. to Al-Madinah, etc., p.72, n. 1.
    57 E.H., in Surv. of Wstn. Palest. Spec. Papers, p. 67f.
    58 C.R. Conder, in PEFQ 1875, p. 130f.
    59 Hill, "Journey to Petra, "PEFQ 1897, p.144.
    60 W. Ewing, "Journey in the Hauran," PEFQ 1895, p.175
    61 Burton, Pilg. to Al-Madinah, etc. II, 154.
    62 Ariel L. Crowley, "Lehi's River Laman," Improvement Era, Vol.
       44 (Jan., 1944), pp.14ff.

    From Lehi in the Desert, Pages 91-95 (Subheadings added)

Nibley commented on Lehi and the desert.  The headings are mine, and I've
omitted his references.

***********************************


Lehi at Home in the Desert
--------------------------

There is ample evidence in the Book of Mormon that Lehi was an expert on
caravan travel, as one might expect.  Consider a few general points.  Upon
receiving a warning dream, he is ready apparently at a moment's notice to
take his whole "...family, and provisions, and tents" out into the wilderness.
While he took absolutely nothing but the most necessary provisions with him
(1 Ne. 2:4), he knew exactly what those provisions should be, and when he
had to send back to the city to supply unanticipated wants, it was for
records that he sent and not for any necessaries for the journey.  This argues
a high degree of preparation and knowledge in the man, as does the masterly
way in which he established a base camp, that is, until the day when he
receives the Liahona, he seems to know just where he is going and exactly
what he is doing: there is here no talk of being "led by the Spirit, not 
knowing beforehand..." as with Nephi in the dark streets of Jerusalem.

His family accuse Lehi of folly in leaving Jerusalem and do not spare his
personal feelings in making fun of his dreams and visions, yet they never
question his ability to lead them.  They complain, like all Arabs, against
the terrible and dangerous deserts through which they pass, but they do not
include ignorance of the desert among their hazards, though that would be their
first and last objection to his wild project were Lehi nothing but a city
Jew unacquainted with the wild and dangerous world of the waste places.

Lehi himself never mentions inexperience among his handicaps.  Members of the
family laugh contemptuously when Nephi proposes to build a ship (1 Ne. 17:17-20)
and might well have quoted the ancient proverb, "Show an Arab the sea and a
man of Sidon the desert."  But while they tell him he is "lacking in
judgment" to build a ship they never mock their brother's skill as a hunter
or treat him as a dude in the desert.  The fact that he brought a fine steel
bow with him *from home* and that he knew well how to use that difficult
weapon shows that Nephi had hunted much in his short life.

Lehi has strong ties with the desert both in his family and his tribal
background.  Twenty-six hundred years ago the Jews felt themselves much
closer to the people of the desert than they have in subsequent times.  "We
come to realize", says Montgomery, "that Israel had its face turned towards
those quarters we call the Desert, and that this was its nearest neighbor."
The Jews themselves were desert people originally, and they never forgot it:
"this constant seeping in of desert wanderers still continues....There is no
barrier of race or language or caste or religion," between them and their
desert cousins"


Lehi's Desert Background
------------------------

Ever since the days of Sir Robert Wood, scholars have been pointing out the
close parallels that exist between the way of life peculiar to the wandering
Bedouins of the East and that of the ancient Patriarchs, especially Abraham.
"Rightly do the legends of Israel depict the father of the nation as living
in tents," says a typical commentary.  "for nomadizing is the proper
business of the genuine old Hebrews, and indeed of the Semites in general."
Hugo Winckler pointed out that whereas the cities of Palestine were all in the
north, the country of Judah was really Bedouin territory, being "the link 
between northern Arabia and the Sinai peninsula with their Bedouin life."
Since Thomas Harmer, 160 years ago attempted to test the authenticity of the
Bible by making a close and detailed comparison between its description of
desert ways and the actual practices of the Bedouins, hundreds of studies
have appeared on that fruitful theme, and they are still being written.  In
one of the latest, Holscher discovers that the word Arab as used in the Old
Testament "designates originally no particular tribe, but simply the nomadic
Bedouins.  In this sense the ancestors of the Israelites were also Arabs
before they settled down on cultivated ground."

  (Hugh Nibley, 'An Approach to the Book of Mormon', pp. 64-65)

Continuing with Nibley (his references are omitted).

**************************************

The Tent
--------

It is most significant how Nephi speaks of his father's tent; it is the
official center of all administration and authority.  First, the dogged
insistence of Nephi on telling us again and again that "my father dwelt in
a tent." (1 Ne. 2:15, 9:1, 10:16, 16:6)  So what? we ask, but to an
Oriental that statement says everything.  Since time immemorial the whole
population of the Near East have been tent-dwellers or house-dwellers, the
people of the "bait ash-sha'r" or the "bait at-tin", "houses of hair or
houses of clay."  It was Harmer who first pointed out that one and the same
person may well alternate between the one way of life and the other, and he
cites the case of Laban in Genesis 31, where "one is surprised to find both
parties so suddenly equipped with tents for their accommodation in traveling."
though they had all along been living in houses.  Not only has it been the
custom for herdsmen and traders to spend part of the year in tents and part in
houses, but "persons of distinction" in the East have always enjoyed spending
part of the year in tents for the pure pleasure of a complete change.

It is clear from 1 Ne. 3:1, 4:28, 5:7, 7:5,21-22, 15:1, 16:10, that Lehi's
tent is the headquarters for all activities, all discussion and decisions....


Councils in the Tent
--------------------

The main activity in the sheikh's tent is always the same.  It is talk.  In
every Arab tribe the sheikh's tent is before all the place where the councils
of the tribe are held; says Musil, "the tent of tryst."  When they are not
raiding and hunting, the men of the tribe sit in the chief's tent and talk.
To make up for the long silence on the march--necessary to avoid undue
thirstiness, "When they assemble under their tents, a very animated
conversation is kept up among them without interruption."  So it is the most
natural thing in the world for Nephi after being out alone to return to the
tent of his father and find his brothers there, "....and they were disputing
one with another concerning the things which my father had spoken unto them."
(1 Ne. 15:1-2.)  And it was perfectly natural for him to join the discussion 
and win the day with a long and eloquent speech.

"The tent is the family hearth, the common bond and something of the incarnation
of the family," writes De Boucheman.  "'Beyt' means 'house' in Arabic in the
sense that we speak of a royal or princely 'house'; it is likewise the term
designating the family group, and embraces more than just one family 'ahl'
but is less comprehensive than the tribe."  That is a perfect description of the
society that traveled with Lehi--more than one family, less than a
clan--properly designated by the peculiar word tent, exactly as Nephi uses it.
Zoram came not to his father's family or the tribe, but to his tent.  In
modern times a great tribe would number about 1000 people or 300 tents, the
average tribe about 100 tents.  But "the scantiness of pasture and water
supplies obliges the Arabs to divide themselves into numerous small camps...
The Sheikh of the tribe, with his family, generally collects the largest
encampment round his tent, and this forms the rendezvous of the rest."  To
seek pasture "the whole tribe...spreads itself over the plain in parties
of 3 or 4 tents each..."

("An Approach to the Book of Mormon", pp. 207-209)

Nephi's invitation to Zoram was: "...if thou wilt go down into the wilderness
to my father, thou shalt have *place* with us.... (1 Ne. 4:34)  Accordingly
after an exchange of oaths, "...We departed into the wilderness, and
journeyed unto the tent of our father," (1 Ne. 4:38)--with their own tents,
of course. (1 Ne. 3:9)  The first thing a suppliant does seeking "place"
with a tribe is to "put up his tent near that of his protector, take a woolen
string from his head and lay it around the neck of his new patron saying,
'I seek protection with thee, O So-and-so.'"  To this the answer is "Be
welcome to my authority!  We receive all of you but what is bad.  Our 'place' 
is now your 'place'."  From that moment the newcomer is under the full
protection of the Sheikh and "has place" with the tribe.  The immemorial
greeting of welcome to those accepted as guests in any tent is 'Ahlan wa-Sahlan
wa-Marhaban': in which 'ahlan' means either a family or (as in Hebrew) a
tent, 'sahlan' a smooth place to sit down and 'marhaban' the courteous moving
aside of the people in the tent so as to make room for one more.  The emphasis
is all on "having place with us".  (Nibley, "An Approach to the Book of
Mormon", p. 208)

As his first act, once his tent had been pitched for his first important
camp, Lehi "...built an altar of stones, and made an offering unto the Lord,
and gave thanks to the Lord" (1 Ne. 2:7)  It is for all the world as if he
had been reading Robertson Smith.  "The ordinary mark of a Semitic sanctuary
[Hebrew as well as Arabic, that is] is the sacrificial pillar, cairn,
or rude altar...upon which sacrifices are presented to the god....In Arabia
we find no proper altar but in its place a rude pillar or heap of stones
beside which the victim is slain."  It was at this same altar of stones that
Lehi and his family "...did offer sacrifice and burnt offerings...and they
gave thanks unto the God of Israel"  (1 Ne. 5:9) upon the safe return of his
sons from their dangerous expedition to Jerusalem.  When Raswan reports, "A
baby camel was brought up to Mishal'il's tent as a sacrificial offering in
honor of the safe return of Fuaz," we cannot help thinking of some such 
scene before the tent of Lehi on the safe return of his sons.  This is what
the Arabs call a 'dhabiyeh-l-kasb', a sacrifice to celebrate the successful
return of warriors, hunters, and raiders to the camp.  "This sacrifice,"
writes Jaussen, "is always in honor of an ancestor,"  and Nephi twice mentions
the tribal ancestor Israel in his brief account.  In the best desert manner
Lehi immediately after the thanksgiving fell to examining the "spoils".
(1 Ne. 5:10)

To this day the Bedouin makes sacrifice on every important occasion, not for
magical and superstitious reasons, but because he "lives under the constant
impression of a higher force that surrounds him..."  St. Nilus in the oldest
known eyewitness account of life among the Arabs of the Tih says, "They
sacrifice on altars of crude stones piled together."  That Lehi's was such
an altar would follow not only from the ancient law demanding uncut stones,
but also from the Book of Mormon expression "an altar of stones," which is
not the same thing as "a stone altar."  Such little heaps of stones,
surviving from all ages, are still to be seen throughout the south desert.

We have seen that the first thing the Jewish merchant in Arabia would do on
settling in a place, whether a camp or town, was to set up an altar.  Bertholet
has argued that since the family and the house were identical in the common
cult of hospitality, to be received as a guest was to be received into the
family cult of which the center was always the altar.

(Hugh Nibley, "An Approach to the Book of Mormon", pp. 209-211, his references
omitted)

Family affairs:
---------------

But how do the members of such closed corporations [Bedouin families] get
along together?  It is the domestic history that presents the real challenge
to whoever would write a history of Bedouin life.  To handle it convincingly
would tax the knowledge of the best psychologist, and woe to him if he
does not know the peculiar ways of the eastern desert, which surprise and
trap the unwary westerner at every turn.

The ancient Hebrew family was a peculiar organization, self-sufficient and
impatient of any authority beyond its own.  "These are obviously the very
conditions," writes Nowack, "which we can still observe today among the
Bedouins."  Thus, whether we turn to Hebrew or to Arabic sources for our
information, the Book of Mormon must conform.  Lehi feels no pangs of conscience
at deserting Jerusalem, and when his sons think of home, it is specifically
the land of their inheritance, their own family estate, for which they yearn.
Not even Nephi evinces any loyalty to the "Jews at Jerusalem," split up as
they were into squabbling interest-groups.

While Lehi lived, he was the Sheikh, of course, and the relationship between
him and his family as described by Nephi is accurate in the smallest detail.
With the usual deft sureness and precision, the book shows Lehi leading--not
ruling--his people by his persuasive eloquence and spiritual ascendancy while
his murmuring sons follow along exactly in the manner of Philby's Bedouins--"an
undercurrent of tension in our ranks all day..."  "We left Suwaykan," says
Burton, "all of us in the crossest of humors....So 'out of temper' were my
companions, that at sunset, of the whole party, Omar Effendi was the only
one who would eat supper.  The rest sat upon the ground, pouting and grumbling
...Such a game as naughty children I have seldom seen played even by Oriental
men..."

"Hate and Envy Here Annoy":
---------------------------

The character and behavior of Laman and Lemuel conform to the normal pattern.
How true to the Bedouin way are their long bitter brooding and dangerous
outbreaks!  How perfectly they resemble the Arabs of Doughty, Burton,
Burckhardt and the rest in their sudden and complete changes of heart after
their father has lectured them, fiery anger yielding for the moment to a great
impulse to humility and an overwhelming repentance, only to be followed by
renewed resentment and more unhappy wrangling!  They cannot keep their
discontent to themselves, but are everlastingly "murmuring."  "The fact
that all that happens in an encampment is known, that all may be said to be
related to each other, renders intrigue almost impossible."  "We were all one
family and friendly eyes," Doughty recollects, but then describes the other
side of the picture--"Arab children are ruled by entreaties....I have known
an ill-natured child lay a stick to the back of his good cherished mother, and
the Arabs say, 'many is the ill-natured lad among us that, and he be strong
enough, will beat his own father.'"

The fact that Laman and Lemuel were grown-up children did not help things.
"The daily quarrels between parents and children in the desert constitute the
worst feature of the Bedouin character," says Burckhardt, and thus describes
the usual source of the trouble: "The son...arrived at manhood is too proud to
ask his father for any cattle...the father is hurt at finding that his son
behaves with haughtiness towards him, and thus a breach is often made."  The
son, especially the eldest one, does not feel that he is getting what is coming
to him and behaves like the spoiled child he is.  The father's attitude is
described by Doughty, telling how a great Sheikh delt with his son--"The
boy, oftentimes disobedient, he upbraided, calling him his life's torment,
Sheytan, only never menacing him, for that were far from a Bedouin father's
mind."  It is common, says Burckhardt ('Ibid'., I, 114) for mothers and sons
to stick together in their frequent squabbles with the father, in which the
son "is often expelled from the paternal tent for vindicating his mother's
cause."  Just so Sariah takes the part of her sons in chiding her own husband, 
making the same complaints against him that they did (1 Ne. 5:2), and she 
rates him roundly when she thinks he has been the cause of their undoing.
(Hugh Nibley, "An Approach to the Book of Mormon", pp. 211-213, his references
omitted)

Is it any wonder that Laman and Lemuel worked off their pent-up frustration by
beating their youngest brother with a stick when they were once hiding in a
cave?  Every free man in the East carries a stick, the immemorial badge of
independence and of authority and every man asserts his authority over his
inferiors by his stick, "which shows that the holder is a man of position,
superior to the workman or day laborers.  The government officials, superior
officers, tax-gathers, and schoolmasters use this short rod to threaten--or
if necessary to beat--their inferiors, whoever they may be."  The usage is
very ancient.  "A blow for a slave" is the ancient maxim in Ahikar, and the
proper designation of an underling is 'abida-l'asa', "stick-servant."  This
is exactly the sense in which Laman and Lemuel intended their little lesson
to Nephi, for when the angel turned the tables he said to them, "...Why do ye
smite your younger brother with a rod?  Know ye not that the Lord hath chosen
*him* to be a ruler over *you*...?" (1 Ne. 3:29.)

Through it all, Laman, as the eldest son, is the most disagreeable actor.  "When
only one boy in the family, he is the tyrant, and his will dominates over all."
So we see Laman still thinking to dominate over all and driven mad that a
younger brother should show superior talents.  The rivalry between the sons of
a sheikh "often leads to bloody tragedies in the sheikh's household," and
Nephi had some narrow escapes.

In the sheikh's tent the councils of the tribe are held and all decisions 
concerning the journey are made (1 Ne. 15:1 ff), but "no sheikh or council of
Arabs can condemn a man to death, or even inflict a punishment...it can only, 
when appealed to, impose a fine; it cannot even enforce the payment of this
fine."  Why, then, if there was no power to compel them, did not Laman and
Lemuel simply desert the camp and go off on their own, as discontented Arabs
sometimes do?  As a matter of fact, they tried to do just that (1 Ne. 7:7), and
in the end were prevented by the two things which, according to Philby, keep
any wandering Bedouin party together--fear and greed.  For they were greedy.
They hoped for a promised land and when they reached the sea without finding
it, their bitter complaint was, "Behold, these many years we have suffered in
the wilderness, which time we might have enjoyed our possessions..."
(1 Ne. 17:21.)  And their position was precarious.  Nephi pointed out to them
the danger of returning to Jerusalem (1 Ne. 7:15), and where would they go if
they deserted their father?  As we have seen, with these people, family was
everything, and the Arab or Jew will stick to "his own people" because they
are all he has in the world.  The family is the basic social organization, civil
and religious, with the father at its head.  To be without tribe or family is
to forfeit one's identity in the earth; nothing is more terrible than to be "cut
off from among the people," and that is exactly the fate that is promised Laman
and Lemuel if they rebel. (1 Ne. 2:21) "Within his own country," says an Arab
proverb, "the Bedouin is a lion; outside of it he is a dog."
(Hugh Nibley, "An Approach to the Book of Mormon", pp. 213-214)

The women particularly had a hard time in the wilderness (1 Ne. 17:20), as they
always do, since they do all the work, while the men hunt and talk.  "The Arab
talks in his tent, cares for the animals, or goes hunting, while the women
do all the work."  The women have their own quarters, which no man may invade;
and an older woman may talk up boldly to the sheikh when no one else dares to,
just as Sariah took Lehi to task when she thought her sons were lost in the
desert. (1 Ne. 5:2-3)  All that saved Nephi's life on one occasion was the
intervention of "one of the daughters of Ishmael, yea, and also her mother, and
one of the sons of Ishmael,: (1 Ne. 7:19), for while "the Arab can only be
persuaded by his own relations," he can only yield to the entreaties of women
without losing face, and indeed is expected to yield to them in the name of his
wife, the daughter of his uncle.  "If a courageous woman demands that a raiding
sheikh give back something so that her people will not starve, he is in honor 
bound to give her a camel...."  Nephi marvelled at the strength that the
women acquired in the midst of their trials and toils.  "...Our women did give
plenty of suck for their children, and were strong, yea, even like unto the
men;..." (1 Ne. 17:2.)  This phenomenon has aroused the wonder and comments
of travelers in our own day.
(Hugh Nibley, "An Approach to the Book of Mormon", pp. 214-215, his references
omitted)

It was the daughters of Ishmael who mourned for him and chided Lehi for his
death.  (1 Ne. 16:34-35)  Budde has shown that the Old Hebrew mourning customs
were those of the desert, in which "The young women of the nomad tribes mourn
at the grave, around which they dance singing lightly."  The Arabs who farm
also put the body in a tent around which the women move as they mourn.  "At the
moment of a man's death, his wives, daughters, and female relations unite in
cries of lamentation, ('welouloua'), which are repeated several times...."
It is common in all the eastern deserts for the women to sit in a circle in a
crouching position while the woman nearest related to the dead sits silently in
the middle--in Syria the corpse itself is in the middle; while singing, the
women move in a circle and whenever the song stops there is a general wailing.
The singing is in unison, Indian fashion.  In some parts the men also
participate in the rites, but where this is so the women may never mix with the
men.  They have a monopoly and a mourning tradition all their own.  Mourning
begins immediately upon death and continues among the Syrian Bedouins for seven
days, a few hours a day.  "All mourning is by mourning women and female
relatives.  No men are present..."  As is well known, no traditions are more
unchanging through the centuries than funerary customs.

In lesson 22 of "An Approach to the Book of Mormon", Hugh Nibley discusses
the parallels between Book of Mormon names and names from the mid East.  That
lesson has more detail than I can give in this reply, but I am giving a
summary that Nibley gives at the first of the lesson.  

**************************

1.  There is in the Book of Mormon within one important family a group of
names beginning with Pa-.  They are peculiar names and can be matched
exactly with Egyptian.  Names beginning with Pa- are by far the most common
type in late Egyptian history, but what ties Pahoran's family most closely
to Egypt is not the names but the activities in which the bearers of those
names are engaged; for they sponsor the same institutions and engineer the
same intrigues as their Egyptian namesakes did centuries before--and in so
doing they give us to understand they are quite aware of the resemblance!

2.  There is a marked tendency for Egyptian and Hebrew names in the Book of
Mormon to turn up in the Elephantine region of Upper Egypt.  It is now
believed that when Jerusalem fell in Lehi's day a large part of the refugees 
fled to that region.

3.  The most frequent "theophoric" element by far in the Book of Mormon names
is Ammon.  The same is true of late Egyptian names.  The commonest formative
element in the Book of Mormon names is the combination Mor-, Mr-; in Egyptian
the same holds true.

4.  Egyptian names are usually compound and formed according to certain rules.
Book of Mormon names are mostly compound and follow the *same* rules of 
formation.

5.  Mimation (ending with -m) predominated in Jaredite names, nunation (ending
with -n) in Nephite and Lamanite names.  This is strictly in keeping with
the development of languages in the Old World, where mimation was everywhere
succeeded by nunation around 2000 B.C., that is, well after the Jaredites had
departed, but long before the Nephites.

6.  A large proportion of Book of Mormon names end in '-iah' and 'ihah'.
The same ending is peculiar to Palestinian names of Lehi's time but not of
other times.

7.  The names in the Book of Mormon that are neither Egyptian nor Hebrew are
Arabic, Hittite (Hurrian) or Greek.  This is strictly in keeping with the
purported origin of the book.

8.  Lehi is a real personal name, unknown in the time of Joseph Smith.  It is
always met with in the desert country, where a number of exemplars have been
discovered in recent years.

9.  Laman and Lemuel are not only "Arabic" names, but they also form a genuine
"pair of pendant names," such as ancient Semites of the desert were wont to
give their two eldest sons, according to recent discoveries.

10.  The absence of "Baal-" names (that is names compounded with the theophoric
Baal element), is entirely in keeping with recent discoveries regarding
common names in the Palestine of Lehi's day.

(pp. 243-244)

People often ask, if the Book of Mormon is true, why do we not find this
continent littered with mighty ruins?  In the popular view the normal legacy
of any great civilization is at least some majestic piles in the moonlight.
Where are your Jaredite and Nephite splendors of the past?  A reading of the
previous lessons [in his book] should answer that question.  In the Nephites
we have a small and mobile population dispersed over a great land area, living
in quickly-built wooden cities, their most ambitious structures being
fortifications of earth and timbers occasionally reinforced with stones.  This
small nation lasted less than a thousand years.  Their far more numerous and
enduring contemporaries, the Lamanites and their associates including the
Jaredite remnants (which we believe were quite extensive) had a type of
culture that leaves little if anything behind it.  Speaking of the "Heroic"
cultures of Greece, Nilsson writes: "Some archaeologists have tried to
find the ceramics of the invading Greeks.  I greatly fear that even this hope
is liable to be disappointed, for migrating and nomadic tribes do not use
vessels of a material which is likely to be broken, as will be proved by a
survey of the vessels used by modern nomadic tribes."  Neither do they build
houses or cities of stone.

The vast majority of Book of Mormon people, almost all of them in fact, are
eligible for the title of "migrating and nomadic" peoples.  We have seen that
the Lamanites were a slothful predatory lot on the whole, and that even the
Nephites were always "wanderers in a strange land."  A great deal of Epic
literature deals with mighty nations whose deeds are not only recorded in
Heroic verses but in chronicles and annals as well--that they existed there
is not the slightest doubt, yet some of the greatest have left not so much as
a bead or a button than can be definitely identified!  "Archaeological 
evidence is abundant," writes Chadwick of the remains of Heroic Ages in
Europe, "though not as a rule entirely satisfactory.  Great numbers of raths
or earthen fortresses, usually more or less circular, still exist...."
But such remains look so much alike that English archaeologists are always
confusing Neolithic, British, Roman, Saxon and Norman ruins.  And this is
the typical kind of ruins one would expect from Book of Mormon peoples.

Scarcity of Stone
-----------------

The surprising thing in the Old World is that so little seems to have been
built of stone, except in a few brief periods such as the late Middle Ages or
the early Roman Empire.  Welsh heroic literature, for example, is full of
great castles, yet long and careful searching failed to reveal a single stone
ruin earlier than the time of the invader Edward I, who learned about stone
castles while crusading in the Near East.  An official list of Roman castles
from the time of Justinian enumerates 500 imperial strongholds and gives
their locations; yet while the stone temples and amphitheaters built at the
same time and places still stand, not a scrap of any of those castles are to
be found.   Though a great civilization flourished in Britain before Caesar,
generations of searching has failed to produce in all England a single stone
from pre-Roman times "on which the marks of a chisel appear, nor any kind of
masonry, by which we can determine with certainty, what sort of materials
were used by them before the arrival of the Romans."  Scandinavian bogs have
brought forth objects of great refinement and sophistication in leather,
metal, wool and wood.  But where are the might buildings that should go with
this obviously dense population and advanced civilization?  They are not there.

Like the Nephites, the ancients in general built of wood whenever they could.
Even in Egypt the chambers of the first kings at Nagadah when not actually
built of boards and beams were built in careful imitation of them in clay
and stone.  The few surviving temples of the Greeks are of course of stone,
yet they still carefully preserve in marble all the boards, logs, pegs, and 
joinings of the normal Greek temple.  In ranging afoot over the length of
Greece, the writer was impressed by the strange lack of ruins in a country whose
richest natural resource is its building stone.  Except for a few famous 
landmarks, one might as well be wandering in Scotland or Wales.  It is hard
to believe as one travels about the upper reaches of the Rhine and Danube, as
the author did for several years by foot, bicycle, and jeep, even if one
visits the local museums and excavations conscientiously, that this can have
been the mustering area of countless invading hordes.  There are plain enough
indications that somebody was there, but in what numbers?  for how long?  and
who were they?  Only the wildest guesses are possible.  The history of the
great migrations is a solid and imposing structure, "clearly perceptible to the
linguist," but until now completely evading the search of the archaeologist....

Looking for the Wrong Things:
-----------------------------

Blinded by the gold of the Pharaohs and the might ruins of Babylon, Book of
Mormon students have declared themselves "not interested" in the drab and
commonplace remains of our lowly Indians.  But in all the Book of Mormon we
look in vain for anything that promises majestic ruins.  They come only with
the empires of another and a later day, and its great restraint and conservatism
in this matter is a strong proof that the Book of Mormon was not composed by 
any imaginative fakir, who could easily have fallen into the vices of our
archaeologists and treasure-hunters.  Always there is a ruinous temptation to
judge things in the light of one's own reading and experience....

But what of the mighty ruins of Central America?  It is for those who know
them to speak of them, not for us.  It is our conviction that proof of the
Book of Mormon *does* lie in Central America, but until the people who study
that area can come to some agreement among themselves as to what they have
found, the rest of us cannot very well start drawing conclusions.  The Old
World approach used in these lessons has certain advantages.  The Near
Eastern specialists are agreed on many important points that concern the Book
of Mormon, and the written records of that area are very ancient, voluminous,
and in languages that can be read.  It is our belief that the decisive
evidence for the Book of Mormon will in the end come from the New World; the
documents may already be reposing unread in our libraries and archives, awaiting
the student with sufficient industry to learn how to use them.

(Hugh Nibley, "An Approach to the Book of Mormon", pp. 370-376)

"Oldest Known Shipwreck Reveals Splendors of the Bronze Age", National
Geographic, December 1987, pp. 693-733

Bronze Age Trade

By the time the Ulu Burun ship sank in the 14th century B.C., a vast trade
network was sell established among the various racial and linguistic groups
centered on the Mediterranean, from subtropical Africa and the Near East to
northern Europe.  The loss represented by the wreck is revealed in the great
distances the cargo was transported by land and sea before being loaded aboard
for the voyage.

Ore for the ship's copper ingots almost certainly was mined on the island of
Cyprus, believed to be ancient Alashiya.  Yet the distinctive shape of the
ingots, with four "legs", or handles, may represent Near Eastern influence:
The only known casting mold for such shapes was excavated at a ruined palace
near the ancient city of Ugarit on the Syrian coast.

Similar ingots have been found as far west as the island of Sardinia.   While
I [George F. Bass] believe those ingots were cast from local ore, their
shape may suggest a Near Eastern presence in the western Mediterranean in the
Late Bronze Age.

The same type of ingots arrived in Egypt in great numbers, as evidenced by
Egyptian tomb paintings that show them stacked in royal storerooms or borne
by Syrian porters bringing tribute.

Suggested sources of Bronze Age tin range from Cornwall in England to as far
east as China and Thailand, though I believe neither area supplied the tin we
have found on the Ulu Burun wreck.  Clay tablets dating four centuries earlier
mention tin being brought westward overland through the Near Eastern city of
Eshnunna to the Syrian coast for shipment.  Our tin may have come from
Afghanistan or perhaps from Turkey, were fieldwork by Aslihan Yener, supported
by the National Geographic Society, recently located another source.

The design of many jars on the wreck was obviously Canaanite, a term applied
to the Bronze Age culture that flourished along the extreme eastern
Mediterranean coast.

More exotic trade goods included ebony-like wood, which grew in Africa to the
south of Egypt.  Other finds included amber, which has since been identified
as a type found in northern Europe, known as Baltic amber.  There was also
ivory in the form of elephant and hippopotamus tusks, both probably originating
along the Syro-Palestinian coast, and ostrich eggshells.

Certainly goods of all types were widely distributed during the Bronze Age.
The distinctive pottery of the Mycenaeans, or Bronze Age Greeks, is found in
every country from Cyprus to the Nile Valley and from Syria to as far west as
Sardinia.  Canaanite amphorae have been found in both Greece and Egypt, and 
Cypriot pottery has been identified as Kommos in Crete and in various parts of
Egypt.

It seems likely that Bronze Age ships such as the one at Ulu Burun plied the
Mediterranean in a circular pattern, sailing from Syria-Palestine to Cyprus,
to the Aegean and occasionally to Sardinia, and then back by North Africa
and Egypt.

Bronze weapons and tools recovered from the Ulu Burun wreck represent a variety
of designs, including Mycenaean, Canaanite, and Egyptian.  Jewelry seems mostly
Canaanite.

Mesopotamian cylinder seals such as the ones we found on the ship have been
discovered in Cyprus and Greece and are known to have been sent as gifts to
the Egyptian pharaohs.

Finally, stone anchors similar to the 16 so far uncovered on the Ulu Burun
wreck have been found in Cyprus, Egypt, and Syria.

Thus, the Ulu Burun wreck provides a detailed and colorful chart of trade routes
and cargoes in the Mediterranean more than 3,000 years ago.  (p. 699)


The ship carried products of at least seven cultures--Mycenaean Greek,
Canaanite, Cypriot, Egyptian, Kassite Assyrian, and Nubian.  These varied
products emphasize the economic ties that existed among Bronze Age [about
1600 B.C. to 1050 B.C.] kingdoms too often studied today as separate
geographic entities. (p. 700)

    I have been so fascinated witthe entries in this notes that I bought
    An Approach to the Book of Mormon by Hugh NIbley.  Here is an
    interesting parallel to the Book of Mormon found on p. 462,footnote
    7.
    
    "The retention of tribal identity throughout the Book of Mormon
    is a typically desert trait and aremarkably authentic touch.  Early
    in their history the people were divided into "Nephites, Jacobites,
    Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites" (Jacob
    1:13).  Where are the Samites?  Why are no groups names after Ishmael's
    sons as they are after Lehi'  The Jews, like other ancient peoples,
    thought of the human race divided like the universe itself into
    seven zones or nations, a concept reflected in certain aspects of
    their own religious and social organizatio  Can this seven-fold
    division of Lehi's people, which was certainly conscious and
    deliverate, have had that pattern in mind?
    
    Nibley also says that even at the end of the Book of Mormon the
    theme  7 divisions can still be foundd.
    

    Kind of reminds me of the twelve tribes of Israel.
    
    Ed
    

    me too ... :-)  Gee, Ed, we agree on something? ;-)
    
    Steve

    re: .22, .23
    
    Oh, you guys.........
    
    Ed, I was reminded of the 12 tribes while reading that also.  Although
    that doesn't tie in with Paul's note on the sevens.  Is that the
    point you were making?
    
    Dave

    re: .24
    
    Yes. I don't see anything particularly remarkable about the sevens
    as mentioned in Paul's note. There may be some interesting insights
    to be gained by contemplating the twelve tribes vs the twelve apostles.
    In my limited understanding of the signifigance of numbers in the
    scripture, seven appears to be the number of God, while six seems to 
    be the number of man. (see Revelation)
    
    Ed
    

    Paul shared this info with me during a visit.  I was impressed with
    the fact that the tribal parallels from the Book of Mormon are
    consistent with the practices of the times.  I don't think that
    this was information to which Joseph Smith was privy prior to
    translating the book.  It's also pretty subtle stuff that would
    be easy to leave out if the book was a fabrication.  I'll be picking
    up my copy of Nibley's book Sunday ... :-)
    
    Steve

    You know, Steve, that is how I feel about Joseph Smith and the Book
    of Mormon.  If, indeed, it is a fabrication by Joseph, then
    archeologists and anthropologists should proclaim him as the most
    advanced genius of their field because he was able to construct
    and write a book in 1830 and include in it "things" unknown at that
    time, but which "things" would come to light a 100 years later. And
    the accuracy with which he portrayed them would stand up to scrutiny.
    In reading the notes on Hugh Nibley's book, plus other tidbits I
    have picked up over the years about external and internal evidences
    and parallels to the Book of Mormon, I stand in awe of the Book
    of Mormon.
    
    Being an old French literature major, I understand somewhat the
    inticacies of writing.  So if Joseph did invent the Book of Mormon,
    then he ranks, in my book, as a genius without parallel (given that
    he "wrote" the book in a short time (30 days?) and had only a grammar
    school education!)
    
    Hugh Nibley says that when someone comes forth proclaiming that
    he has discovered an ancient text, it is the responsibility of scholars
    to show how the text is valid or fake, not the person who discovered
    the document.  I will post the rest of his ideas in this regard.
                                                                    
    Paul

    RE: < Note 156.27 by SLSTRN::RONDINA >

    > If, indeed, it is a fabrication by Joseph, then
    > archaeologists and anthropologists should proclaim him as the most
    > advanced genius of their field because he was able to construct
    > and write a book in 1830 and include in it "things" unknown at that
    > time, but which "things" would come to light a 100 years later. And
    > the accuracy with which he portrayed them would stand up to scrutiny.

      I guess I've missed something here.  But just what are the accurate
      "things unknown at that time, but which would come to light a
    100 years later."    
    
    
    > Being an old French literature major, I understand somewhat the
    > intricacies of writing.  So if Joseph did invent the Book of Mormon,
    > then he ranks, in my book, as a genius without parallel (given that
    > he "wrote" the book in a short time (30 days?) and had only a grammar
    > school education!)
    
	If Joseph Smith is a fraud, then the assumption that it took
    only 30 days can not be valid.  This is the time that he claims
    to have taken to have translate it.  Granted noone could write
    a book from scratch of the magnitude of the BOM, but there is
    nothing to say that if Joseph Smith was a fraud that he did not
    have help or that there was not another manuscript involved.

    I'm looking forward to reading Hugh Nibley's book, as well as another
    of his I'm tracking down.  Ed, there's gobs of stuff that the B
    of M mentions that were not known at the time of Joseph Smith but
    were discovered later.  Some of the evidence is aknowledged as 
    controversial, but there is a Church filmstrip (video?) that you might 
    get hold of called 'Ancient America Speaks' that details some of
    this.  I think if you check at just about any ward library on a Sunday
    or with the missionaries you can borrow a copy.  Off the top o' me
    head I recall the following:
    
    	o the Tree of Life as having significance in South American
    	  religion
    	o traditions indicating that the Savior visited South America
	o the presence of large cities and advanced civilizations
    	o records on metal plates buried in stone boxes
    	o the presence and use of elephants in South America
    
    This only scratches the surface.  Note 159 touches on some of this
    stuff.  That might be of interest.  Might even be a good topic for
    another note.
    
    Steve

    Thanks, Steve, for your clarification of "things".  Off the top
    of my head, here are some unknown "things"in Joseph's time, but currently
    accepted:
    
    Chiasmus (mirror writing of the Hebrews)
    Linkage of Egyptian/Hebrew world with South America (i.e. Thor
               Heyerdahl)
    "Doomsday Prophets" of 600 BC
    
    I am not an expert in this area, but it does not take much searching
    to find more.  That is why I am reading Hugh Nibley - to learn more
    of the subtelties of the BofM. In one of his chapters Nibley makes
    a list of new discoveries that are causing so much concern because
    they are disturbing currently held beliefs and theories. I will
    put them in when I have time.  But I really do suggest reading the
    book.  Perhaps we could set up another note for a discussion of
    this book?
    
    Paul
    
    
    
    Paul
    

See note 39.11 for a listing of Nibley's major books.  F.A.R.M.S. has many
of his smaller things too, but I didn't list them in 39.11

Allen

    Steve,
    
>    of his I'm tracking down.  Ed, there's gobs of stuff that the B
>    of M mentions that were not known at the time of Joseph Smith but
>    were discovered later.  Some of the evidence is aknowledged as 

    I think you are mistaking Roger for me again. It's nice to know
    that I'm not alone over here on this side of the fence, but don't
    give me credit for Roger's questions!
    
    While I'm here, why don't I throw in my $.02 of opinion:
    
    One, with a work the length of the BM, it is not too difficult to
    find some "parallels" to give it credibility if you state them 
    carefully enough. So far I have been singularly unimpressed with
    the "parallels" I've seen presented so far. They are much too vague
    and general or seem insignifigant. Large cities? Which of the large 
    cities named in the BM have been located so far? Just because ancient 
    ruins have been found in S. America doesn't mean they were built by 
    the Nephites or some other group from the BM.
    
    Second - the "sevens" - while certain numbers in ancient times had
    symbolic signifigance, the fact that there are seven tribes mentioned
    in the BM cannot, in my opinion, be of value in adding credibility
    to the book, because (and correct me if I'm wrong) the names of
    tribes were always derived from the ancestral father of the tribe.
    No one sat down and "decided" to have a certain number of tribes.
    Mormons should be even more aware of this than others, due to the
    great emphasis they place on knowing one's ancestry.
    
    I saw 'Ancient America Speaks', and the grand finale of host's
    presentation seemed to be the signifigance that he placed on a
    stone box found in S. America that he likened to the stone
    box described by Joseph Smith. Gee, Joseph Smith said he found a
    stone box and they found a stone box in S. America. Wow. Pardon
    my lack of enthusiam. The obvious question then is, where is the 
    stone box JS said he found? Nobody knows, although they know well 
    enough the site where the alleged discovery took place, and it is 
    visited by thousands of people each year.
    
    I won't go into detail on the other statements you made, other that
    to say that they seem to have combed the ancient myths and fables
    to find a description of a "god" that one could imply refers to
    Christ, when the rest of the references to this same "god", 
    Quetzacotyl (sp) must be ignored, because it most definitely does
    not fit any concept of Christ.
    
    This is all that I can come up with off the top of my own head right
    now.
    
    Ed

    

    
    	Thanks Ed for straitening out our identities. 

    RE: < Note 156.29 by MIZZOU::SHERMAN 

    > there's gobs of stuff that the B
    > of M mentions that were not known at the time of Joseph Smith

	You've mentioned only a few parallels or things that could
    only be considered a coincidence, but nothing more.
    
       As for the use of elephants - could you please tell me your 
    source for this (ie: National Geographic or some other such
    reputable source)
    
    Roger

    There are a couple of parallels that I find intriguing.
    
    1- Horses in America.
    
    For a long time, archeologists said that horses first came to America
    with the Spaniards. Critics of the Book of Mormon said that the
    references to horses in America prior to 400 A.D. proved the book was
    wrong. Now archeologists have changed their tune, and say that horses
    were in America much earlier than originally thought -- long before the
    Spaniards. Now this does not prove the Book of Mormon is an authentic
    record. But it does point out an interesting parallel, in my humble
    opinion. 
    
    
    2- Deseret - Honey Bee.
    
    The Book of Mormon says there was a group of people, known as the
    Jardites, who travelled from the Tower of Babel eventually to America.
    They brought with them honey bees, which they called "Deseret". Hugh
    Nibley's research has shown the exalted place the honeybee had in early
    Egypt. The ancient records indicate that the early Egyptians may have
    brought the honeybee with them to Egypt, much as the Jaredites did.
    Interestingly, the ancient word for honeybee in Egypt comes very close
    to the word Deseret. Again, this does not prove the Book of Mormon is
    an authentic record, but points out a parallel that is interesting. 
                                                          
    
    Rich

    Sorry about the confusion between Roger and Ed.  I ain't perfect
    yet.
    
    re .32: What can we say?  The evidence speaks for itself.  Also,
    Nibley was drawing parallels with tribal customs, not the Twelve
    Tribes.  It *reminds* me of the Twelve Tribes, but that's not the
    point.  I gotta get that book ... 
    
    re .33: Considered a coincidence but nothing more?  Again, the evidence
    speaks for itself.  There are an awful lot of coincidences that
    are not well blown off with some reference to Spalding, traditions
    or whatever.  The 'coincidences' are not few in number.  I've only
    mentioned a few by topic.  Books have been written full of this stuff,
    though I don't have references handy.  For example, there have been
    computer studies done concerning the chiasma and writing styles
    showing how they parallel the times.
    
    There are drawings of elephants that were found.  An elephant
    reference is in 'Ancient America Speaks', as I recall.  


    Steve    

    From Nibley's  "An Approach to the Book of Mormon:, p 3-4
    
     "Our purpose is to illustrate, explain, suggest and investigate.
     We are going to consider the Book of Mormon as a possible product
    not of Ancient America but of the Ancient East... Proving the Book
    of Mormon is another matter.  YOu cannot prove the genuineness of
    ANY document to one who has decided not to accept it.  The scribes
    and Pharisees of old constantly asked Jesus for PROOF, and when
    it was set before them in overwhelming abundance they continued
    to disbelieve.  When a man asks for proof we can be pretty sure
    that proof is the last thing in the world he really wants.  His
    request is thrown out as a challenge, and the chances are that he
    has no intention of being shown up.  After all these years the Bible
    itself is still not proven to those who do not choose to believe
    it, and the eminent Harry Torczyner now declares that the main problem
    of Bible study today is to determine whether or not "the Biblical
    speeches, songs and laws are gorgeries".(1)  So the Book of Mormon
    as an "unproven" book finds itself in good company."
    
    
    (1) Harry Torczyner, "Das literarische Problem der Bibel", ZDMG
    10, (1931): 287-88.
    
                       

    In chapter 6 of An Approach to the Book of Mormon, Nibley shows
    how Lehi and his descendants manifested their Arabic natures.
    
    "Lehi, like MOses and his ancestor Joseph, was a man of 3 cultures,
    being educated not only in "the learning of the Jews and the language
    of the Egyptians"  (1 Nephi 1:2), but in the ways of the desert
    as well...  The dual culture of Egypt and Israel would have been
    impossible without the all-important Arab to be the link between,
    just as trade between the two natios was unthinkable without the
    Bedouin to guide their caravans through his deserts.
    
    It should be noted in speaking of names that archaeology has fully
    demonstrated that the Israelites, then as now, had not the slightest
    aversion to giving their children non-Jewish names, even when those
    names smacked of a pagan background.  One might, in a speculative
    mood, even detect something of Lehi's personal history in the names
    he gave to his sons.  The first 2 have Arabic names - do they recall
    his early days in the caravan trade?  The second 2 have Egyptian
    names, and indeed they were born in the days of his prosperity.
     The last two, born amid tribulations in the desert, were called
    with fitting humility, Jacob and Joseph.  Whether the names of the
    first four were meant, as those of the last two sons certainly were
    (2 Nephi 2:1; 3:1), to call to mind the circumstances under which
    they were born, the names are certainly a striking indication of
    their triple heritage, and it was certainly the custom of Lehi's
    people  to name their children with a purpaose (Helaman 3:21; 5:6)
    
    
                                                        

    More from chapter 6 about Lehi and the Arabs
    
    One thing is certain however: that Lehi is a personal name.  Until
    recently this name was entirely unknown save a palce name, but not
    it has turned up at Elath and elsewhere in the south in a form which
    has been identified by Nelson Glueck with the name Lahai which "occurs
    quite frequently either as a part of a compoung, or as a separate
    name of a deity or a person, particularly in Minaean, Thamudic,
    and Aragic texts."  There is a Beit Lahi, "House of Lehi", among
    the ancient place names of the Arab country around Gaza, but the
    meaning of the names has here been lost.  If the least be said of
    it, the name Lehi is thoroughy at home amoung the people of the
    desert and, so far as we know, nowhere else.
    
    The name Lemuel is not a conventional Hebrew one, for it occurs
    only in one chapter of the Old Testament (Proverbs 31:1,4, where
    it is commonly supposed to be a rather mysterious poetic substitute
    for Solomon.  It is , however, like Lehi, at home in the south desert,
    where an Edomite text "a place occupied by tribes descended from
    Ishmael" bears the title,  "The Words of Lemuel, Kind of Massa".
    

More on Nibley and chapter 6, Lehi and the Arabs: p 81.
    
    One interesting linguistic tie between Israel and the Arabs should
    not be overlooked since it has direct application to the Book of
    Mormon.   We refer to those Hebrew genealogies in which "the
    nomenclature is largely un-Hebraic, with peculiar antique formations
    in -an, -on, and in some cases of particular Arabian origin."  The
    loss of the ending "on"is quite common in Palestinian place names,
    according to Albright, referring to places mentioned in Eqyptian
    records.  One can recall any number of Book of Mormon place names
    - Emron, Heshlon, Jashon, Moron, etc., that have preserved this
    archaic -on, indicative of a quaint conservatism among Lehi's people,
    and especially of ties with the desert people.
                                              

    From Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon, Chapter 8, 
    "Politics in Jerusalem", page 100:
    
    Such was the old aristocracy of Israel.  Eduard Meyer says that
    all their power and authority went back originally to the first
    land allotments made among the leaders of the migratory host when
    they settled down in their land of promise.  Regardless of wealth
    of influence or ability, no one could belong to the old aristocracy
    who did not still possess "the land of his inheritance."  This
    institution - or attitude-plays a remarkably conspicuous role in
    the Book of Mormon.  Not only does Lehi leave "the land of his
    inheritance" (1 Nephi 2:4) but whenever his people wish to establish
    a new society they first of all make sure to allot and define the
    lands of their inheritance, which first allotment is regarded as
    inalienable.  No matter where a group or family move to in later
    times, the First land allotted to them is always regarded as "the
    land of their inheritance", thus Alma 22:28; 54:12-12; Ether 7:16
    - in these cases the expression "land of first inheritance" is used.
     This is a powerful argument for the authenticity of the Book of
    Mormon both because the existence of such a system is largely the
    discovery of modern research and because it is set forth in the
    Book of Mormon very distinctly and yet quite casually.
               
    Paul
    

    RE: < Note 156.35 by MIZZOU::SHERMAN >


    > There are drawings of elephants that were found.  An elephant
    > reference is in 'Ancient America Speaks', as I recall.  

	Much of the material I contributed early on in this conference
    was rejected because of the source.  'Ancient America Speaks' is
    more than likely a biased source.  Please, if you state something
    as proving a parallel - state the original source. In other words
    where is the published information that 'Ancient America Speaks'
    used to based its 'facts' on?  Is it Mormon, anti-Mormon or otherwise?
    

    I have just finished reading Chapters 9 & 10 on Nibley's An Approach
    to the Book of Mormon in which he discusses in length the whole
    episode of Laban.  There is so much in these chapter that it would
    take too long to enter them, so I will summarize them.  Nibley starts
    out by saying
    
    "There is no more authentic bit of Oriental culture-history  than
    that presented in Nephi's account of the brothers' visits to the
    city.  Because it is so authentic it has appeared strange and overdrawn
    to western critics unacquainted with the ways of the East and has
    been singled out for attack as the most vulnerable part of the Book
    of Mormon."
    
    For those unacquainted with this story:  basically Lehi decides
    that he must have certain records (family history, scriptures) that
    are in the possession of a man called Laban, a distant relative
    of his.  So Lehi sends his sons,Nephi, Laman and Lemuel, back to Jerusalem
    to get the records.  Laman and Lemuel go in to Laban and ask for
    the records, even offering him all of Lehi's family fortune (gold,
    etc.).  Laban says "no", threatens to kill them.  They escape out
    of the city.  Nephi then goes in, but not knowing what he will do.
     So he wanders around the city at night.  Suddenly he comes upon
    Laban in a drunken stupor, in the street dressed in his armor. 
    An angel appears and tells Nephi to slay him.  Nephi goes through
    a lengthy discussion with the angel and himself saying he cannot
    do it.  Finally the angel persuades him to slay Laban, which he
    does.  Nephi puts on Laban's armor in disguise, goes to his house,
    tricks one of the servants, Zoram, to let him have the records.
     Zoram follows Nephi, thinking he is Laban.  When Nephi is safe,
    he reveals his identify.  Zoram gets scared; Nephi vows to slay
    him if he does not come with them into the wilderness.  Zoram listens
    to Nephi's story about the wickedness of Jerusalem and its pending
    destruction (as testified by an angel).  Zoram says "I will go with
    you"  and off they go back to Lehi with the records from Laban and
    Zoram.  (Whew!  That took longer than I thought!  I hope I got it
    right).  Any how here is what Nibley shows as being some background
    and insights into this whole episode.
    
    "Nephi tells us casually but emphatically that things at Jerusalem were
    controlled by "the elders of the Jews", who were holding nocturnal
    meetings with the powerful and influential Laban (1 Nephi 4:22-27)."
    
    "Bible students recognize today that affairs at Jerusalem were
    completely under the control of the elders.   The word "elders"
    has been understood to mean the heads of the most influential families
    of a city.  In 1935  in the city of Lachish, 30 miles south of
    Jerusalem, a remarkable set of documents was found.  They were military
    reports written at the very time of the fall of Jerusalem and saved
    from the flames of burning."
    
    "Now in the Lachish letters we learn that the men who are running
    and ruining everything are the SARIM, who actually are the elders"
    
    Nibley goes on to say that these SARIM were the ones who were
    advocating the widespread decadence while stoning and denouncing
    the prophets, including  Jeremiah. These elders were so powerful
    that they even ruled over the king.  (Note; all of this information
    became available in 1935 with the finding of the Lachish documents,
    thus pre-dating Joseph Smith by at least 100 years.)
    
    Anyhow NIbley says that Laban's night meetings with the SARIM were
    quite in keeping with what the Lachish letters tell of these final
    days of Jerusalem.  The SARIM were constantly holding nocturnal
    meetings with influential people, the purpose of which was secret
    agreements, plots, conspiracies, etc.  So it was natural for Laban
    to be out during the night, and as Nephi says meeting with the elders
    of the Jews.
    
    Now as for his armor.  Nibley goes on to paint a picture of what
    the streets of any ancient city were like without lighting, even
    giving an account from  a description by Juvenal.  Basically
    he says that unlight city streets were foreboding places where only
    the bravest or stupidest souls would venture.  The streets at night
    were just about an open battle ground to all kinds of seedy characters
    lurking in dark corners.  So for Laban to be armored and with a
    servant for protection is as it would have happened.
    
    This notes is starting to get too long so I will add the rest 
    about Laban in the next note.
    
    
    Paul
    
    
    PS  Noone has given me any feedback yet on all these notes I have
    entered.  Am I boring you all to tears?  I am personally finding
    all of these subtle background details to the Book of Mormon so
    absolutely fascinating - and of course testimony growing!

    re: .41
    
    Hey, I *saw* the photos and you can get a copy of 'Ancient America
    Speaks' and see for yourself.  You can go to a Ward nearby, a Church 
    bookstore or talk to the missionaries if you want to see it.  If you 
    don't like the film, fine.  But, it is available to you and you can
    check it out on your own.  
    
    Steve

Re .41

>	Much of the material I contributed early on in this conference
>    was rejected because of the source.  'Ancient America Speaks' is
>    more than likely a biased source.  Please, if you state something
>    as proving a parallel - state the original source. In other words
>    where is the published information that 'Ancient America Speaks'
>    used to based its 'facts' on?  Is it Mormon, anti-Mormon or otherwise?
    
The interpretation of parallel evidence is always controversial, and I agree
with Roger--we need to identify the original sources as much as we can.  The
controversy isn't whether the evidence exists, but what it means.  It is
to be expected (and desirable) that other people will be skeptical about 
pro-Mormon interpretations since they are controversial.  In fact, even though
I'm a Mormon, I'm skeptical about many of the interpretations I read about
archaeology and the Book of Mormon, because the authors frequently present
biased interpretations.  One of the reasons I enjoy reading Hugh Nibley is
that I feel he is non-biased in his viewpoint.

When we post parallel evidence in this note, we are basically saying the
following:

    Here is some parallel evidence that we find interesting.  It does not prove
    the Book of Mormon to be true, but from our viewpoint it does increase the
    probability of its being true, since to us this information is not likely to
    be a coincidence.  Here are the sources from which we obtained the
    information.  We hope you enjoy it and hope you will share your thoughts
    about it with us."

If we leave out our sources, then we hinder our non-LDS friends from taking
objective looks at the information.  The closer our sources are to
"recognized authorities in the field", the less skepticism our non-LDS friends
will have about the parallels.

In some cases people wishing to post parallel evidence may not have
"authoritative" sources to give.  I expect this is the case with the film that
Steve mentioned.  It has been a long time since I saw the film, and my memory
about it is dim, but I expect that it presents an interpretation of
archaeological evidence without quoting scientific journals or other
"authoritative" sources. I think it is fine for someone to use a LDS church film
as a source of information if that is the only source they have.  Other people
may have additional information which they can post, and so on.  This is the
nature of these notes files.  On the other hand, if the pro-LDS source does
quote scientific journals, then it would be a good idea to identify the
journals so people can establish a firmer link of creditability in their mind
about the topic; also, persons wishing to pursue the topic further will have
some leads.  In the information I posted from Nibley at the beginning of this
note, I left out his scientific references due to my time to type them, but I
did try to include enough in my replies to establish the idea that Nibley did
have a scientific basis for his comments.

Allen

     Here is the rest of the information on Laban.
    
    "Laban of Jerusalem epitomizes the seamy side of the world of 600
    BC.  We learn in passing that Laban commanded a garrison of fifty,
    that he met in full ceremonial armor with the elders of the Jews
    for secret consultations by night, that he had control of the treasury,
    that he was of the old aristorcracy, being a distant relative of
    Lehi himself, that his house was depository of very old family records,
    that he was a large man, short-tempered, crafty and dangerous. 
    All of which makes him a Rabu to the life, the very model of an
    Oriental Pasha."
    
    Nibley goes on to say that Palestine and Syria had been under the
    rule of military governonrs of native blood, such as Laban, but
    who were answerable to Egypt. "They were by and alarge a sordid
    lot careerists whose authority depended on constant deception and
    intrigue...  The Lachish Letters show that such men were still the
    lords of creation in Lehi's day-the commanders of the towns around
    Jerusalem were still acting in closest cooperation with Egypt in
    military matters... One of the main functions of any governor in
    the East has always been to hear petitions, and the established
    practice has ever been to rob the petitioners wherever possible."
    
    
    From the Book of Mormon we learn that Laban had a garrison of fifty
    permanent soldiers in Jerusalem (1Nephi 3:31).  "The number fifty
    suits perfectly with the Amarna picture, where the military forces
    are always so surprisingly small and a garrison of thirty to eighty
    men is thought adequate even for big cities.  It is strikingly
    vindicated in a letter of Nebuchadnezzar, Lehi's contemporary, wherein
    the great king orders 'As to the fifties who where under your
    command,those gone to the rear, or fugitives return to their ranks.'
     Commenting on this , Offord says, 'In these days it is interesting
    to note the indication here that in the Babylonian army a platoon
    contained fifty men',  aslo we might add that it was called a "fifty"
    - hence "Laban with his fifty".  Of course, companies of fity are
    mentioned in the Bible, but not as garrisons of great cities and
    not as THE standard military unit of this time."
    
    So from the above, Nibley shows some subtle details about Laban
    which were unknown during Joseph's day, but which information is quite 
    consistent with new information found in the Lachish Letters.
    
    
    That is enough for now.
    
    Regards to all readers,
    
    Paul
    

    Nibley spends a great amount of time on the Dead Sea Scrolls in
    his book, An Approach to the Book of Mormon.  Here is just a summation
    of what he points out over several chapters:  
    
    The mystery of the nature and organization of the Primitive Church
    has recently been considerably illuminated by the discovery of the
    so-called Dead Sea Scrolls.  The Scrolls have caused conisderable
    dismay and confusion among scholars, since they are full of things
    generally believed to be uniquely Christian, though they were
    undoubtedly written by pious Jews BEFORE the time of Christ.  Some
    Jewish and Christian investigators have condemned the Scrolls as
    forgeries and suggest leaving them alone on the grounds that they
    don't make sense.  Actually, they make very good sense, but it is
    a sense quite contrary to conventional ideas of Judaism and
    Christianity.  The very things which made the Scrolls at first so
    baffling and hard to accept to many scholars are the very things
    which in the past have been used to discredit the Book of Mormon.
    
    page 171
                                                                     

    Here is some more from Nibley on the Dead Sea Scrolls and their parallels
    to B of M:
    
    Another important disclosure of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the world,
    and one of which shcolars are now well aware, was the discovery
    of large areas of Jewish and Christian doctrine and practice of
    which the scholars had been totally ignorant; and these areas, far
    from being mere bits of obscure detail, lie at the very heart of
    Judaism and Christianity in their older and purer forms.   The
    discovery of the scrolls has proven very upsetting to the experts.
    The Jewish scholars who twitted the Christians for being alarmed
    by the discovery that the religion of Christ was not a novel and
    original thing suddenly introduced into the world for the first time
    with the birth of Jesus, were in turn thrown into an even greater
    turmoil by the discovery that doctrines which they had always
    attributed to Christian cranks and innovators were really very old
    and very Jewish.  Israel and Christianity, heretofore kept in separate
    and distinct compartments by the professors of both religions (except
    for purely symnbolic and allegorical parallels), are seen in the
    Scolls to have been anciently confounded and identified.  Suddenly
    a window is opened on the past and we behold Israel full of what
    is Christian and the early Church full of Israel.  With this discovery,
    as we have pointed out elsewhere the "one effective argument against
    the Book of MOrmon (i.e. that it introduces New Testament ideas
    and terminology into a pre-Christian setting) collapses".
    
    The quote is footnoted thusly:
    Peter Meinhold in Die Anfange des
    amerikanischen Geschichtsbewusstseins, taxes the Book of Mormon
    with being a fraud and a forgery because it attributes New Testament
    practices and terminology to people who lived hundreds of years
    before New Testament times.
    
    Nibley titled this chapter of his book Unwelcome Voices from the
    Dust because in it he goes on to show how the Scolls disturb the
    information the Jewish and Christian scholars had held to be true.
    The date of the Scrolls are from  200BC to 70AD.  Nibley goes on
    to show how the "new information" from the scrolls is perfectly harmonious
    with ideas, doctrines and practices found in the Book of Mormon.
     In effect the Book of Mormon provides the bridge between Israel
    and Christ.
    
    That's enough for now.
    
    Paul
                                    

    FROM NIBLEY CHAPTER 18, Man Versus Nature 

               
    In Nehpi's description of his father's eight years of wandering
    in the desert we have an all but foolproof test for the authenticity
    of the Book of MOrmon.  It can be shown from documents strewn down
    the centuries that the ways of the desert have not changed, and
    many first-hand documents have actually survived from Lehi's age
    and from the very regions in which he wandered.  These inscriptions
    depict the same hardships and dangers as those described by Nephi,
    and the same reactio to them. A strong point for the Book of Mormon
    is the calim that Lehi's people survived only by "keeping in the
    more fertile parts of the wilderness" (1Nephi 16:14), since tht
    is actually the custom followed in thsoe regions, though the fact
    has only been known to westerners for a short time.  Nephi gives
    us a correct picture of hunting practices both as to weapons and
    methods used.  Even the roughest aspects of desert life at its worst
    are faithfully and correctly depicted.
    
    Page 225 - introduction to the chapter.
    

    Hunting Weapons in the Book of MOrmon
    
    From Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, page 231
    
    "Every Bedawin is a sportsman both from taste and necessity", writes
    one observer, who explains how in large families some of the young
    men are detailed to spend all their time hunting.  Nephi and his
    brothers took over the business of full-time hunters and in that
    office betray the desert tradition of the family, for Nehpi had
    brought a fine steel bow from home with him, and he knew how to
    use it.  He explicitly tells us that the hunting weapons he used
    were "bows, arrows, stones, and slings"  (1 Nephi 16:15).  that
    is another evidence of the Book of Mormon, for Manzer found that
    those were indeed the hunting weapons of the early Hebrews, who
    never used the classic hunting weapons of their neighbors, the sword,
    lance, javelin, and club.  "The bow," he tells us, "was usually
    make of hard, elastic wood, but quite often of METAL.  We do not
    know whether it resembled the Arabic of the strong Persian bow."
    Evidence for metal bow he finds in 2 Samuel 22:35 and Job 20:24.
     No need to argue, as we once did, in favor of a partly metal bow.
    
    According to ancient Arab writers, the only bow wood, obtainable
    in all Arabia was the nab wood that grew only "amid the inaccessible
    and overhanging crags" of Mount Jasum and MOunt Azd, which are situated
    in the broken bow incident.  (Note to reader:  Nephi,while hunting
    breaks his bow of steel and makes one of wood)  How many factors
    must  be correctly conceived and correlated to make the apparently
    simple story of Nephi's bow ring true!  The high mountain near the
    REd Sea at a considerable journey down the coast, the game on the
    peaks, hunting with bow and sling, the finding of bow-wood viewed
    as something of a miracle by the party - what are the chances of
    reproducing such a situation by mere guesswork.
    
    
    page 231-232
    
                                                      

    From Nibley "The Desert Route" in An Approach to the Book of
    Mormon,page 234-35
    
    It is obvious that the party went down the eastern and not the western
    shore of the Red Sea from the fact that they changed their course
    and turned east at the nineteenth parallel of latitude and "did
    travel nearly eastward from that time forth"....  Had the party
    journeyed on the west coast of the Red Sea, they would have had
    only water to the east of them at the nineteenth parallel and for
    hundreds of miles to come.  But why the nineteenth parallel?  Because
    Joseph Smith may have made an inspired statement to that effect.
     He did not know, of course, and nobody knew until the 1930s, that
    only by taking a "nearly eastward" direction from that point could
    Lehi have reached the one place where he could find the rest and
    the materials necessary to prepare for his long sea voyage.
    
    The best western authority on Arabia was thus completely wrong aobut
    the whole nature of the great southeast quarter a generation after
    the Book of Mormon appeared, and it was not until 1930 that the
    world knew that the country in which Lehi's people were said to
    have suffered the most is actually the worst and most repelling
    desert on earth.
    
    In Nephi's picture of the desert everything checks perfectly.  There
    is not one single slip amid a wealth of detail, the more significant
    because it is so casually conveyed.
                                                           
    
    Bye for now

    Here is some more from Nibley's An Approach to the Book of MOrmon,
    page 263, showing how some of Lehi's poetry was very typical of
    eastern literature.
    
    One of the most revealing things about Lehi is the nature of his
    great eloquence.  It must not be judged by modern or western standards,
    as people are prone to judge the Book of Mormon as literature. 
    In this chapter we take the case of a bit of poetry recited extempore
    by Lehi to his two sons to illustrate certain peculiarities of the
    Oriental idiom and especially to serve as a test-case in which a
    number of very strange and exacting conditions are most rigorously
    observed in the Book of Mormon account. Those are the conditions
    under which ancient desert poetry was composed.  Some things that
    appear at first lance to be most damning turn out on closer inspection
    to provide striking confirmation of its correctness.
    
    The passage Nibley wants to show us is this one:  1 Nephi 2:9-10
    
    9.  And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied
    into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying: 
    O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running
    into the fountain of all righteousness?
    
    10.  And he also spake unto Lemuel:  O that thou mightest be like
    unto this valley, firm and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the
    commandments of the Lord!
    
    Nibley goes into  an elaborate dissection of Lehi's poetry, but
    I will only take the summaries.
                                                           
    
    The earliest desert poems were songs inspired by the fair sight
    of running water, no one today knows the form they took. But it
    can be conjectured from the earliest known form of Semitic verse
    that that form was the "sajc", a short exhortation or injunction
    spoken with such solemnity and fervor as to fall into a sort of
    chant...The  speaker of the sajc did not aim consciously at metrical
    form, his words were necessarily more than mere prose, and were
    received by their hearers as poetry.  The sajc had the efect of
    overawing the hearer completely and was considered absolutely binding
    on the person to whom it was addressed, its aim being to compel
    action.
    
    Lehi's words to his sons take jusst this form of short, solemn,
    rhythmical appeal.  The fact that the speech to Laman exactly matches
    that to Lemuel shows that we have here such a formal utterance as
    the sajc.  The proudest boast of the desert poet is, "I utter a
    verse and after it its brother," for the consummation of the poetic
    art was to have two verses perfectly parallel in form and content.
    Lehi seems to have carried it off.
    
    Two interesting and significant expressions are used in Nephi's
    account of his father's qasidah (poetry) to Laman and Lemuel.  The
    one is "the fountain of the REd Sea", and the other "this valley,"
    firm and steadfast.  Is the Red Sea a fountain?  For the Arabs any
    water that does not dry us is a fountain.  Where all streams and
    pools are seasonal, only springs are abiding-water that never runds
    away or rises and falls and can therefore only be a fountain. This
    was certainly the concept of the Egyptians from whom Lehi may have
    got it.
    
    As to the valley, firm and steadfast, who west of Suez, would ever
    think of such an image?  We, of course, know all about everlasting
    hills and immovable mountins, the moving of which is the best known
    illustration of the infinite power of faith, but who ever heard
    of a steadfast valley?  The Arabs to be sure.  For them the valley,
    and not the mountain, is the symbol of permanence.  It is not the
    mountain of refuge to which they flee, but the valley of refuge.
     The great depressions that run for hundreds of miles across the
    Arabian peninsula pass for the most part through plains devoid of
    mountains.  It is in these ancient riverbed alone that water,
    vegetation and animal life are to be found whne all else is desolation.
     They alone offer men and animals escape from their enemies and
    deliverance from death by hunger and thirst.  The qualities of
    firmness and steadfastness, of reliable protection, refreshment,
    and sure refuge when all else fials, which other nations attribute
    naturally to mountains, the Arabs attribute to valleys.
                       
    
    This note is getting to long I will put the rest in the next note
    for quicker reading.
    
    Paul

    Here is the rest I promised concerning Lehi's poetic eloquence.
    
    From page 275.
    
    Let us briefly list the exacting conditions fulfilled by Nehpi's
    account of his father's (Lehi) qasidas (poetry) and demanded of
    the true and authentic desert poet of the earliest period:
    
    1. Songs inspired by the sight of water gushing from a spring or
    running down a valley.
    
    2. They are addressed to one or usually two traveling companions.
    
    3. They praise the beauty and the excellence of the scene, calling
    it to the attention of the hearer as an object lesson.
    
    4. The hearer is urged to be like the thing he beholds.
    
    5. The poems are recited extempore on the spot and with great feeling.
    
    6. They are very short, each couplet being a complete poem in itself.
    
    7. One verse must be followed by it "brother", making a perfectly
    matched pair.
    
    Here we have beyond any doubt all the elemnts of a situation of
    which no westerner in 1830 had the remotest conception.  
    
    From page 275.
    
    No passage in the Book of MOrmon has been more often singled out
    for attack than Lehi's description of himself as one "whose limbs
    ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave, from whence
    no traveler can return (2 Nephi 1.14)  
    
    Nibley goes on to say that critics say Joseph Smith borrowed this
    quote from Shakespeare's Hamlet "that undiscovered country, from
    whose bourne no traveler returns".  However, Nibley goes on to show
    many quotes from ancient Sumerian, Akkadian, and Egyptian literature with
    similar text as Lehi's.  Nibley then says Lehi, as an educated man
    of his day, is only using ideas and words that were current in his
    day.  Further proof that Lehi's poetic words were an accurate literary
    picture of his time.
                             

    In Chapter 23 of An Approach to the Book of Mormon, Hugh Nibley
    presents an in-depth look at the Great Assembly at the New Year,
    a national event at the New Year's Day in which "everyone was required
    by law to be present at this great event, to do homage to the king
    and receive his blessing for the new age, the result was a tremendous
    assembly."  Nibley prefaces the chapter, thus:
    
    Since Gressmann, Jeremias, Mowinckel, and many others began their
    studies at the start of the century, a vast literature on the subject
    of the Great Assembly at the New Year and the peculiar and complex
    rites performed on that occasion has been brought forth.  Yet nowhere
    can one find a fuller description of that institution and its rites
    than in the Book of Mormon.  Since "patternism" (as the awareness of
    a single universal pattern for all ancient year-rites is not being
    called) is a discovery of the past thirty years, the fact that the
    now familiar pattern of ritual turns up in a book published in 1830
    is an extremely situmlating one.  For its is plain that Mosiah's
    account of the Great Year Rite among the Nehpites is accurate in
    every detail, as can be checked by other year-rites throughout the
    world.
    
    I will not take the time to go into the detail Nibley presents about
    the Great Assembly for he details 36 conditions the Great Assembly
    must fulfill according to the recently discovered (this century)
    rites from Near Eastern cultures.  Interestingly enough the Great
    Assembly convened by King Benjamin (Mosiah 1-6) meets every one
    of these 36 conditions, not one is left out, not one is added.
    
    How could have Joseph Smith known of this ritual and included it
    in the Book of Mormon, when during his day no one knew of it?
    
                                             

    It has been some time since I put a note here from NIbley's An Approach
    to the Book of Mormon.  But, here is a summary from Chapter 24 in which
    Nibley discusses the famous quote in Ezekiel that Mormons use as an Old
    Testament reference of the B of M.
    
    Here is the Ezekiel reference; Ezekiel 37:15-17
    
   15. The word of the Lord came again unto me saying,
    
    16. Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it,
    For Judah, and for the children of Israel, his companions; then take
    another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and
    for all the house of Israel, his companions:
    
    17. And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall be come
    one in thine hand.
    
    19. Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold I will take the
    stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Epraim, and the tribes of his
    fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah
    and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.
    
    Mormons say that the stick is the word  Israelites used to name
    their histories.  Thus, the stick of Judah become the books of
     the Old Testament and the stick of Joseph become the books of the 
    Book of Mormon.  The fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy is that the 
    Bible and Book of Mormon are joined together today in providing
    the histories of these tribes.
    
    Now for NIbley's comments:
    
    The Latter-day Saint claim that Ezekiel's account of the Stick of
    Joseph and the Stick of Judah is a clear reference to the Book of
    Mormon has, of course, been challenged.  There is no agreement among
    scholars today as to what the prophet was talking about, and so no
    competeing explanation carries very great authority.
    
    A number of important studies by "outsiders" (non-LDS) who know nothing
    of the Book of Mormon have repeated our own labors and put the stamp
    of Gentile respectability on our own conclusions.  The preliminary work
    for determining whether or not Ezekiel was speaking of the Book of
    MOrmon has now been done by unprejudiced scholars,and we are free to go
    ahead and demonstrate just why we are now more firmly convinced that the
    prophet was speaking of the Book of Mormon when he spoke of the Stick
    of Joseph.
    
    Nibley then goes through an elaborate discussion of the recent
    research, showing new information that reaffirms the Mormon
    interpretation of Ezekiel.
    
    The conclusion;  There is no other explanation for Ezekiel's prophecy
     by any scholar that stands up to scrutiny.  In most cases the
    scholars try to ignore the passage because it cannot be interpreted. 
    The Mormon intrepretation is the only one that clearly explains
    Exekiel's meaning and the only one that will stand up to in-depth
    study. 
    
    Regards,
    
    Paul

    Re 156.54:
    
>    The Latter-day Saint claim that Ezekiel's account of the Stick of
>    Joseph and the Stick of Judah is a clear reference to the Book of
>    Mormon has, of course, been challenged.  There is no agreement among
>    scholars today as to what the prophet was talking about, and so no
>    competeing explanation carries very great authority.
    
>    A number of important studies by "outsiders" (non-LDS) who know nothing
>    of the Book of Mormon have repeated our own labors and put the stamp
>    of Gentile respectability on our own conclusions.  The preliminary work
>    for determining whether or not Ezekiel was speaking of the Book of
>    MOrmon has now been done by unprejudiced scholars,and we are free to go
>    ahead and demonstrate just why we are now more firmly convinced that the
>    prophet was speaking of the Book of Mormon when he spoke of the Stick
>    of Joseph.
    
>    Nibley then goes through an elaborate discussion of the recent
>    research, showing new information that reaffirms the Mormon
>    interpretation of Ezekiel.
    
>    The conclusion;  There is no other explanation for Ezekiel's prophecy
>    by any scholar that stands up to scrutiny.  In most cases the
>    scholars try to ignore the passage because it cannot be interpreted. 
>    The Mormon intrepretation is the only one that clearly explains
>    Exekiel's meaning and the only one that will stand up to in-depth
>    study. 
    
    
  Paul, please forgive me if I cannot help but respond with more than a 
  little skepticism regarding your (and Nibley's) conclusions. I find it 
  awfully hard to believe that non-Mormon scholars would conclude that the 
  Book of Mormon is the "stick of Joseph", and that most scholars try to 
  "ignore the passage because it cannot be interpreted".

  You, and Nibley, are free to conclude what you wish, but you really will 
  have to provide more than a few vague references to "outside studies" to 
  support your assertions on this topic. I will be happy to take up this 
  topic when I'm finished with classes next month.

  Ed

    Ed Preston,
    
    I summarized the chapter because the footnotes are so exhaustive, 49 in
    all and many texts are in foreign languages.
    
    Here are some of the names Nibley lists:
    Irwin,  Herntich, Zorell, Magnus, Keil, Wiseman, Eusebius, Widengren,
    Kristensen, Spiegelberg, Cullin, Blass, Ginzberg, Freeman, Weinhold,
    Koerich, Rumpf, Mllery,, Blau, Burnell, Vogue, Hermae Pastor, Clement,
    Jamiesen, Wardle, Alleman, Flack, Justin, Cooke, Ironside, Skinner,
    Driver, Jenkinson, Kautzsch, Speigel, Jerome, Irenaeus, Milgne, Origen.
    
    If you really want to pursue this information, I can photo copy the
    footnotes and send them to you. Nibley sometimes will put a broad
    comment such as "scholars have stated" and then will give you pages of
    footnotes on who these scholars are. In his discipline he is famous for
    the thoroughness of his research.
    
    Let me know if you want the footnote pages from this chapter, or any
    other for that matter.
                                                            

    Yes, photocopy the whole chapter, if you don't mind. I'll read it...
    I'm not a Bible scholar, but I know one or two personally that I
    could check with.
    
    Ed
    

    Will do.  The chapter is on its way.  I am assuming you are at
    CHM1-2/C2.
    
    Paul
    

    Paul,
    
    Thanks for sending the material. I just received it yesterday. 
    I will be reviewing it and also sending copies to some friends
    who are qualified biblical scholars. (ie: Phd, MDiv, etc.) It 
    should be interesting to hear what they have to say.
    
    Ed
    

156.4 on transoceanic migrations to the New World was moved to note 239.

    Well I have finally finished Nibley's "An Approach to the Book of
    Mormon".  This book was fascinating because it attempted to show the
    Hebrew and Semitic influences in the Book of Mormon.  Even though
    NIbley's comments were very drammatic in showing that J. Smith wrote
    about things 100 years before any archaeologists had made discoveries
    supporting what J. Smith translated, Nibley ends his book with a note
    of caution about jumping to conclusions about "archaeological
    evidence".
    
    From his Appendix, page 431
    
    Proceed with Caution!
    
    There is certainly no shortage of ruins on this continent,but until
    some one object has been difinitely identified as Nephite or Jaredite
    it is dangerous  to start drawing any conclusions.  There was no
    HIttite archaeology, for example, until some object was definitely
    prove n to be Hittite, yet men were perfectly justified in searching
    for such objects long before they discovered them.  The search must go 
    on, but conclusions should wait.  
    
    A Disappointing PIcture
    
    People often ask, if the Book of MOrmon is true, why do we not find
    this continent littered with might ruins?....In the Nephites we have a
    small and mobile population dispersed over a great land area, living in
    quickly built wooden cities, their most ambitious structures being
    fortifications of earth and timbers occasionally reinforced with
    stones.  This small nation lasted less than a thousand year.  Their far
    more numerous and enduring contemporaries, the Lamanites and their
    associates including Jaredite, had a type of culture that leaves little
    of anything behind it.
    
    Nibley goes on to say that even some of the greatest civilizations have
    left little behind from which accurate pictures of their culture can be
    recreated because so few of them built with enduring materials like
    stone.  He says that mostly it was the MIddle Ages in Europe that saw
    most stone buildings that have endured.
    
    Well, I hope you enjoyed the notes I put in from Nibley's book.  For me
    it reinforced my testimony of the Book Of Mormon as a true record of a
    civilization established here in the Americas.  If J. Smith "wrote"
    (meaning dreamt it up)  the book, then all the more do I respect him
    for his intellect and his being ahead of his time.  However, I know
    that he did not write it.  
    
    Bye for now.
    
                                                                          

Paul,

Regarding the material you sent me from Nibley's An Approach to the Book 
of Mormon (ch 24): I gave a copy to a friend of mine, a former college 
roomate and now Phd candidate at Brandeis, and spent some time discussing 
the subject with a man (a member of our church) who's a retired professor
and Biblical researcher specializing in the O.T. I'm certain his 
qualifications are on a par with Mr. Nibley's. Neither man know the 
other, but my old roomie's familiar with the work of the other man.

Anyhow, I have yet to get back to my friend - I tried calling a couple of 
times, but since he's in school and quite busy I've missed him so far.
I want to wait until I can enter both men's comments. Be patient, 
they're on the way...

But for now...

>    There are a couple of parallels that I find intriguing.
>    
>    1- Horses in America.
>    
>    For a long time, archeologists said that horses first came to America
>    with the Spaniards. Critics of the Book of Mormon said that the
>    references to horses in America prior to 400 A.D. proved the book was
>    wrong. Now archeologists have changed their tune, and say that horses
>    were in America much earlier than originally thought -- long before the
>    Spaniards. Now this does not prove the Book of Mormon is an authentic
>    record. But it does point out an interesting parallel, in my humble
>    opinion. 

Am I going to open up yet another can of worms...? Oh well...

It so happens that I am taking an evening course in archaeology, and
maybe two lectures ago the professor mentioned in passing that there were
no horses in America until the Spaniards brought them. He is an
anthropologist/archaeologist on staff at MIT, so I assume that he is
knowledgeable enough to know what he is talking about, so as far as he's 
concerned, your info on horses in America is incorrect.

I well remember the last time we went around on the genetics issue, but 
right up front I will acknowledge that archaeology is an entirely 
different kind of science than genetics, and liable to a great deal of 
interpretation. *BUT*, I'm learning that there is an awful lot more 
science involved than I had previously realized, and it is fascinating 
to be sure.

I'm also hearing things in my class that don't jibe very well with some 
of the replies in this topic, too, but that's for later.

Regards,

Ed
    

See note 235 for a discussion of animals in the Book of Mormon.  Reply .4
discusses horses.  Ed, if you're interested in the references given by
Sorenson that I omitted from note 235, I'll be glad to photocopy them for you;
they were too numerous & lengthy for me to type in.  I would be interested
in hearing what your teacher at MIT says about Sorenson's comments about
animals.  The message that I get from Sorenson is that the final story about
animals in Mesoamerica isn't in, and we need to keep an open mind while the
scientists do further research.

Allen

    Allen,
    
    Thanks for the pointer to 235. Yes, I'd be interested in those
    references, too.

    � I would be interested in hearing what your teacher at MIT says 
    � about Sorenson's comments about animals.  
    
    Well, maybe I'll try to pass some of the info on to him, but it
    is a rather large class (lecture format) and he's always got people
    handing him articles and so forth at class. I wouldn't want to give
    him anything that would require a lot of time to go through.
    
    I vaguely recall reading a while back that horse-like skeletons
    were in fact found in Central America, but that they were small
    and probably used for food rather than beasts of burden.
    
    �The message that I get from Sorenson is that the final story about
    �animals in Mesoamerica isn't in, and we need to keep an open mind 
    �while the scientists do further research.

    Well, you can always take that position, especially regarding 
    archaeology, because there seldom is a "final story".
    
    BTW, the class is not at MIT, that is where the instructor is from.

    Ed

    

Hi Ed,

>    Thanks for the pointer to 235. Yes, I'd be interested in those
>    references, too.

I just put the references from Sorenson in the mail for you.  I included
his whole chapter 7 as well as the references for it, so you would get more
detail than that I had put into note 235.  I'll appreciate hearing your
comments after you've read the material.

Allen

    I came across the following article that I felt had some parallels with
    the Book of Mormon. According to a explorer, tablets were found in Peru
    that contained inscriptions similar to Phoenician and Semitic
    hieroglyphs. As far as I know, the explorer is not LDS. I'm skeptical
    about his claim that this could prove that he found the site of King
    Solomon's gold mine, but I do find it interesting that he found
    inscriptions similar to those used by the Hebrews in South America,
    which would parallel the account found in the Book of Mormon. 
    
                      Ancient Tablets Unearthed in Peru
                      ---------------------------------
    
              Explorer claims they may point to Solomon's mines
    
    LIMA, Peru (AP) -- An American explorer said Wednesday that he has
    found three ancient stone tablets in Peru's highland jungle that may
    prove the are was the site of King Solomon's legendary gold mines. 
    
    The explorer, Gene Savoy, said in an interview the tablets contain the
    first writing found from the ancient civilizations of the Andes and
    that the inscriptions are similar to Phoenician and Semitic
    hieroglyphs. 
    
    John Rick, an archaeologist at Stanford University who has worked in
    Peru for 15 years, said he was highly skeptical of Savoy's claim. 
    
    "It would seem unlikely to me," he said in a telephone interview. "A
    wild guess I could make is that it may be some sort of a petroglyph
    commonly done by the people of the Amazon. It can almost look like
    writing... 
    
    "What would strike me as odd about it is we would have three very large
    stone tablets engraved with hieroglyphs in an area otherwise devoid of
    anything of the type." 
    
    Savoy, on the other hand, said the find could be extremely valuable.
    "We have found something that is going to revolutionize the
    archaeological interpretation of Peru's ancient civilizations," he
    said. 
    
    Peru's pre-Columbian cultures, which culminated with the Incas, were
    not known to have written languages, said Savoy, 62, a member of the
    New York Explorers Club. 
    
    The hieroglyphs on the tablets are similar to those used in King
    Solomon's time and include one identical to the symbol that always
    appeared on the ships he sent to the legendary land of Ophir, which the
    Bible described as the source of his gold, Savoy said. 
    
    He said the Chachapoyas "could have used the Amazon as a highway to the
    sea. And there is no reason the Egyptians or Hebrews couldn't have use
    the Amazon in reverse." 
    
    "This is controversial, of course," he said. "But it's all there for
    the doubters to see." 
    
    The Independent Record, Helena, MT, Dec 7, 1989, p.2A 

    This may or may not be the right place to put this, but here goes.
    Remember the notes some time back about genetics indicating that the
    American Indian traces geneaology back to Oriental roots rather than
    Semitic roots?  Assuming that this it true, why is it that numerous
    records have been found that bear resemblance to Semitic writings, but
    few (none that I'm aware of) records have been found that bear
    resemblance to Oriental writings?
    
    My own theory is that Oriental(ish?) genetic information was present in
    those whose genetic information survived in the American Indian.
    This includes an acceptance of the account in the Book of Mormon.
    
    Steve

    >Assuming that this it true, why is it that numerous records have 
    >been found that bear resemblance to Semitic writings, but few (none 
    >that I'm aware of) records have been found that bear resemblance to 
    >Oriental writings?

    I remember somebody saying that (about the semitic-type writings)
    and asking the person who made that claim to give us some references.
    Nothing more was ever heard on the matter. From what I know about
    New World archaeology (ok, not *that* much but more than the average
    bear), no one ever found semitic-type records of any kind anywhere
    in the New World, and none of the archaeology books that I own have
    anything to say about it either. In fact, if a reference for this claim
    is ever produced, I'd be awfully surprised if it doesn't come from a 
    Mormon source.
    
    >My own theory is that Oriental(ish?) genetic information was present in
    >those whose genetic information survived in the American Indian.
    >This includes an acceptance of the account in the Book of Mormon.
    
    I can't follow this. Could you restate it a little differently?
    What is the connection between genetic information and acceptance
    of the account in the Book of Mormon?
    
    Ed

    

Ed,

I suppose the note I was responding to is not a satisfactory, non-Mormon 
reference?  As far as the other statement, I mentioned earlier that my own
opinion is that Oriental genetic information may have come with Lehi or those
who accompanied him to the New World per the B of M.

Steve

    Re: Note 156.67 by ARCHER::PRESTON

    Hi Ed,
    
>   I remember somebody saying that (about the semitic-type writings)
>   and asking the person who made that claim to give us some references.
>   Nothing more was ever heard on the matter. From what I know about
>   New World archaeology (ok, not *that* much but more than the average
>   bear), no one ever found semitic-type records of any kind anywhere
>   in the New World, and none of the archaeology books that I own have
>   anything to say about it either. In fact, if a reference for this claim
>   is ever produced, I'd be awfully surprised if it doesn't come from a 
>   Mormon source.
    
    Actually, Ed, I had you in mind when I posted .65 ;-}. At least
    one non-Mormon has asserted that semitic type records have been
    found from ancient American cultures.
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich
    

> I suppose the note I was responding to is not a satisfactory, non-Mormon 
> reference?  As far as the other statement, I mentioned earlier that my own
> opinion is that Oriental genetic information may have come with Lehi or those
> who accompanied him to the New World per the B of M.

�    ... Assuming that this it true, why is it that numerous
�    records have been found that bear resemblance to Semitic writings, but
�    few (none that I'm aware of) records have been found that bear
�    resemblance to Oriental writings?

Steve,

You mentioned "numerous records" that resemble Semitic writing have been 
found. First of all, .65 refers only to one very recent an unexamined claim 
of one man, not "numerous records". Last time I heard this thing about 
Semitic writing being found in the New World, I asked for references. 
None came. Nobody accepts Mr. Savoy's claims at this time, so, no, it 
is not a satisfactory non-Mormon reference.

As far as genetic information goes, Semites, like Lehi would have been, 
do not carry Oriental genes. 

As for your question about why no Oriental writing has not been found if 
native Americans are Oriental by descent, it doesn't necessarily follow 
that they would carry Oriental culture with them just because they are 
genetically Oriental. The original peoples likely came to the New World
before geographically Oriental cultures even developed writing. I am 
partly Scottish by descent, yet I do not write Gaelic inscriptions. My 
ancestors left that behind.

---------

I find it interesting that the fellow mentioned in .65 (I saw mention of 
it in the Boston Globe the other day BTW) is called an "explorer" 
(whatever that means) instead of an anthropologist or archaeologist, yet 
his claims are given a high level of credence.

Admittedly, if what he has found is what he thinks it is, than it is a 
spectacular find, yet it would only prove that King Solomon had a brief 
presence there (not personally of course) but wouldn't really enhance 
the credibility of Mormon claims of entire semitic nations proliferating 
there over hundreds of years.

I spoke briefly w. Michael Geselowitz (Harvard anthropologist) last night, 
and mentioned the story. He hadn't heard it, but expressed the same
skepticism as John Rick. My own personal opinion (not theory) is that Mr. 
Savoy (the explorer) is not qualified to analyze inscriptions. Besides, 
if these inscriptions were made by King Solomon's men, they would be as 
readable as any other inscriptions from Solomon's time, unless, of course, 
they wrote in "reformed Egyptian" just to throw us off. :-)

This is all very interesting though, and I'd be interested to hear what 
comes of it.
    
>    Actually, Ed, I had you in mind when I posted .65 ;-}. At least
>    one non-Mormon has asserted that semitic type records have been
>    found from ancient American cultures.

Gee, thanks for thinking of me, Rich! If you mean somebody besides Mr. 
Savoy, please let us know who it is.

Thanks,

Ed

    By the way, note that my posting of the article was not to "prove"
    anything about the Book of Mormon, but only to point out a possible
    parallel. Certainly the claims of this explorer of finding Semitic
    writings from ancient America need to be further examined. They may be
    true, or they may not. 
    
    As to his qualifications as a scientist, I have no knowledge to say
    what expertise he does or does not have. Could be that his only
    qualification is that he can tell a story that the newspapers would
    print. 
    
    As far as "numerous" examples of Semitic writings from ancient America,
    I don't happen to have in my possession information to confirm or deny
    such claims, but I am interested in anything others might have on this
    subject.     

    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

>Nobody accepts Mr. Savoy's claims at this time, so, no, it 
>is not a satisfactory non-Mormon reference.

>I find it interesting that the fellow mentioned in .65 (I saw mention of 
>it in the Boston Globe the other day BTW) is called an "explorer" 
>(whatever that means) instead of an anthropologist or archaeologist, yet 
>his claims are given a high level of credence.

    Do I detect a bit of contradiction?
    
>As far as genetic information goes, Semites, like Lehi would have been, 
>do not carry Oriental genes. 
    
    This is an unprovable assertion.  This assumes that Semites of today
    were genetically no different than Semites of more than 2000 years ago.
    Though a reasonable assumption, it is not proven.  It also assumes that 
    a large sample has been taken of the Semites of today, which is not the 
    case according to the information I have read.  Even with a large sample 
    today, a large sample would be required from 2000 years ago for a proof.  
    Even then, the effect of small samples must be taken into consideration 
    with respect to Lehi and his family.  Also, one of the basic ideas of the 
    theory (as I understand it after reading a couple of articles on it) has 
    to do with only a few genetic strains passing through a large population.  
    Over the course of time, other strains become extinct.  Who is to say that 
    there were none among the Semites of 2000 years ago that had Oriental 
    traits?  This has been discussed pretty heavily already, so I'll stop.

>As for your question about why no Oriental writing has not been found if 
>native Americans are Oriental by descent, it doesn't necessarily follow 
>that they would carry Oriental culture with them just because they are 
>genetically Oriental. The original peoples likely came to the New World
>before geographically Oriental cultures even developed writing. 

    The Semit-ish references that I think of are the writings that have
    been found in the New World that have been so described.  One
    collection of this type of reference is the Popol Vuh that contains
    legends of the Quiche Indians of Guatemala.  These were described by Le
    Plongeon as possibly originating in the New World, finding their way to
    the Old World and being adopted by the Hebrews.  Le Plongeon claimed to 
    have found these writings on old buildings in Chichen-Itza and Uxmal
    along with mural paintings of the creation, the temptation of Eve,
    the story of Cain and Abel, and other Hebrew legends.  Another
    reference is the Chimalpapacoa manuscript which details the creation of
    the world in successive periods, creating plants and animals, and
    creating man from dust and other Semitic legends.  These references
    come from "The Restored Church", but the source reference is
    "Mormonism and Free Masonry" by Ivins which I do not have.
    
    Granted, the Orientals may have not been able to write.  But, they
    surely had some way to communicate with each other.  Shouldn't
    they have carried with them the folklore of the Orientals, rather than 
    the Hebrews?  Of course, I suppose one explanation could be that there 
    could have been a lot of parallels between Oriental and Hebrew folklore.
    
    
    Steve

Rich,

I'm sure no one would try to "prove" anything on the basis of that 
article alone, although I found it quite interesting. My archaeology 
prof hadn't heard about it but said he'd like a copy, so it is getting 
around!

� I find it interesting that the fellow mentioned in .65 (I saw mention of 
� it in the Boston Globe the other day BTW) is called an "explorer" 
� (whatever that means) instead of an anthropologist or archaeologist, yet 
� his claims are given a high level of credence.

>   Do I detect a bit of contradiction?

Who me? Where, where??

� As far as genetic information goes, Semites, like Lehi would have been, 
� do not carry Oriental genes. 
    
>    This is an unprovable assertion.  This assumes that Semites of today
>    were genetically no different than Semites of more than 2000 years ago.
>    Though a reasonable assumption, it is not proven.  
>    ...This has been discussed pretty heavily already, so I'll stop.

Yes, you're right Steve. We have probably gotten as far as possible 
w/o more people having formal training in genetics, and to try to further
map genetic principles into one's own understanding of the way things
work will only invite further speculation. 

Also, your idea of "proof" seems to be tied to a rather narrow view of what
science is and is not. If science is only that which can be proven
empirically in a laboratory, then indeed my assertion is unprovable. But
an understanding of the mechanism of genetic inheritance and the
uniqueness of certain traits to various races makes such quibbling over
"proof" rather pointless. Suffice it to say that I don't believe that
within the context of the principles of genetics, I really need to 
further qualify my statement about what Lehi's genetic background would 
be.

Also... Thanks for coming up with some references! My original comment 
was only that I asked for references and never heard any more about it, 
but, let's be realistic, our jobs are *not* to spend all day in the notes 
conferences after all. Each of us has several things that take priority 
over noting. (Though I do wonder about how some of you manage to come up 
with such lengthy replies so quickly - I can't type that fast..!)

>    The Semit-ish references that I think of are the writings that have
>    been found in the New World that have been so described.  One
>    collection of this type of reference is the Popol Vuh that contains
>    legends of the Quiche Indians of Guatemala.  These were described by Le
>    Plongeon as possibly originating in the New World, finding their way to
>    the Old World and being adopted by the Hebrews.  

Well, if that was the case, then it has no value in supporting Mormon 
claims because it is going in the wrong direction! You have writing from 
the New World influencing writing in the Old World, not the other way 
around, as it would need to be to support the idea that there may have 
been Semite civilizations in ancient America.

>  Le Plongeon claimed to have found these writings on old buildings in
>  Chichen-Itza and Uxmal along with mural paintings of the creation, the
>  temptation of Eve, the story of Cain and Abel, and other Hebrew legends. 
>  Another reference is the Chimalpapacoa manuscript which details the
>  creation of the world in successive periods, creating plants and animals,
>  and creating man from dust and other Semitic legends.  These references
>  come from "The Restored Church", but the source reference is "Mormonism
>  and Free Masonry" by Ivins which I do not have. 

Who's Le Plongeon? When did he do his research? Just curious. From the 
title of the book, it sounds like he might be of LDS background. Is he?

>   Granted, the Orientals may have not been able to write.  But, they
>   surely had some way to communicate with each other.  Shouldn't
>   they have carried with them the folklore of the Orientals, rather than 
>   the Hebrews?  Of course, I suppose one explanation could be that there 
>   could have been a lot of parallels between Oriental and Hebrew folklore.

You seem to suggest that had Oriental folklore (instead of Hebrew) been the 
basis for the writings and paintings that Le Plongeon discovered, then the 
results would have been different. Perhaps, but I seem to recall that 
many cultures have legends with elements similar to various Biblical
accounts. One that I know of is a Babylonian account of the flood, which,
at least in the are of Babylon, has been supported by archaeolgical
evidence (layer of silt and so forth). Also, Le Plongeon's interpretation
of the discovered writings and paintings could be overly biased by a
number of factors, or built on less than adequate knowledge, and thus
erroneous. Or, he could be right! If you could be more specific about the
title of his book, I may be able to locate it at the Widener Library. It
could prove to be interesting. 

Thanks,

Ed

>Who me? Where, where??

You indicate that "nobody accepts Mr. Savoy's claims" and also state that 
"his claims are given a high level of credence".  Credence being defined as 
acceptance as true or as belief, this seems to me to be a contradiction.
I expect that "nobody" refers to the set of people that accept the findings
and are of far greater repute than Boston Globe editors.  Then, I may have 
to agree ... :)

>Well, if that was the case, then it has no value in supporting Mormon 
>claims because it is going in the wrong direction! 

It was apparently the opinion of the Le Plongeon that traditions may have gone 
from West to East based on the findings.  This was pointed out to illustrate 
how striking the similarities were.  It is not believed by those referencing
the source that such a migration actually occurred.  I certainly don't believe
it.

As I mentioned, I don't have the source, only a reference to it.  I wish I 
knew more.  What I posted was basically as much as I had.  I recognize that 
there are common elements of Biblical stories (Garden of Eden, the Flood and so
forth) in many cultures.  Nibley uses this in his discussion of the Book of 
Abraham to show that the ideas presented are feasible.  What I would have 
expected would be something that was more characteristically Oriental.  
Perhaps some reference to Buddha or to Oriental mythology?  I don't know.

If you can find the reference, I and others will be very interested!  Thanks!

Steve

The following is from the F.A.R.M.S. Update for July 1992.

The preparation of light sources for the Jaredite barges has long been an
enigma to Book of Mormon readers.  The book of Ether describes how the
brother of Jared asked the Lord to touch sixteen stones that they might
give off light.  The Lord did touch them and somehow changed them such
that they did give off light.

"The physical oddity of such a source of illumination, however, has been
a cause of considerable ridicule for the Book of Mormon.  Comments such
as the following are typical:

  "The story of Ether's stone candles overtaxes the marvelous...and these
  sixteen stone candles gave light for eight vessels while crossing the
  ocean to America.  Who is eager to believe this story?  Shall we believe
  it simply because we cannot disprove it?  They say there is a 'man on the
  moon,' and that 'the moon is made of green cheese,' and we cannot
  disprove it--shall we therefore believe it? (William Sheldon, 'Mormonism
  Examined' [Brodhead, WI: By the Author, 1876, pp. 139-40.)

"More recently Weldon Langfield expressed his opinion of the shining
stones: 'The words 'patently ridiculous' seem too kind ('The Truth About
Mormonism' [Bakersfield, CA: Weldon Langfield Publications, 1991, p. 45]
Many critics completely dismissed the Book of Mormon because they could
not believe that such a light source was physically feasible.

"Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico have recently developed 
radioluminescent lights that invite some interesting comparisons with the
Jaredite stones.  These lights are intended to 'serve needs for lighting
where no electricity is readily available' (SNL News Release, p. 1).
There life expectancy is about 20 years and they are described as being
'bright' and very 'intense.'

"The radioluminescent lights are made from a highly porous silica matrix
--'aerogel'--in which a phosphor such as zinc sulfide is dispersed.
The radioactive source of the lights is tritium gas, which when 
incorporated into the aerogel, actually becomes chemically bonded to the
aerogel matrix.  The radioactivity of tritium results in beta decay.  The
beta particles (electrons) 'permeate through the open spaces of the
aerogel and strike the phosphor particles, exciting them and causing them
to emit light' (Ibid).  The majority of the light emitted escapes to the
outside, whereas the beta radiation is contained inside the matrix."

Nobody is claiming that Sandia has duplicated the method used by the
Lord.  However, this is an interesting parallel that should kill once
and for all the claims that the "stone candles" of the Jaredites are
ridiculous.  The SNL development shows that "stones" (I'm using the word in
a general sense) of the right composition can give off light even though
they do not have a connection to an orthodox power source.

We must be careful that we don't claim that this development proves the
Book of Mormon story to be true.  It doesn't.  It is only a parallel. 
The value of this parallel is (a) the Book of Mormon story is a bit more
plausible, and (b) we need to realize that the final chapter of scientific
evidence for/against the Book of Mormon hasn't been written yet, and we
need to have patience to see what science discovers in the coming years.

A comment for those not into electronics.  The method used by SNL uses the
same effect as that used in TV sets.  TV screens are coated with phosphor.  Elec
Electrons are emitted by "guns", hit the screen, and excite the phosphor.
Light is emitted in the form of TV pictures.

/Allen

    It seems like a lot of the "proofs" in here are from "Ensign" or some 
    other LDS-biased periodical.  They also seem to be too speculative and 
    unconvincing.  Is there something available from reputable, unbiased,
    scientific journals that contain some hard, fast proof/evidence?
    
    thanks,
    Mike