There are 6 thoughts on “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Map: Part 1 of 2”.

  1. Excellent paper. RT’s own work seems self defeating. I enjoyed reading some of his 39 Exodus based references that are woven into Nephi’s record. RT is giving a powerful testimony that Joseph Smith couldn’t have written that book. It is good to keep in mind that the uneducated rough stone rolling Joseph performed the translation in less than 90 days. And yet, by RT’s own admission, 39 subtle Exodus based themes exist in the text. The simplest explanation is that yes, Joseph was visited by an angel, discovered gold plates and the Lord has given us this wonderful book of scripture.

  2. Keep in mind that the B of M is meant to be a book of spiritual revelations and not as a geographical book. For if it were presented as such soon treasure hunters would descend upon its various alleged sites in droves. And in short order a mess would prevail in the physical lands and the political landscapes as has been done with the Biblical lands of Old .Note Qumran the Dead Sea Scrolls Mt Ararat and the socio-geo-political repercussions in those areas of the world. In other words – NEVER AGAIN! Be patient. The Lord will reveal ALL in his own due time.

  3. Outstanding work, Jeff. One note on the ‘missing’ years in the wilderness — Kent Brown has suggested in a paper (“A Case for Lehi’s Bondage in Arabia”, 1997) that Lehi and his group may have found themselves in servitude to one or more local tribes between Nahom and Bountiful. I find the idea persuasive and — given my next point — suggestive that Nephi may have dropped this from his “small plates” account because it did not serve his purpose in writing it (and it sort of messed up the Exodus template that Nephi was using).
    As for Nephi’s account of the journey not meeting RT’s expectations of what it would contain — that strikes me as reflecting a lack of familiarity (or actual engagement) with the text itself. (It also strikes me as some rather blatant and unsupportable modern projection as to what a corresponding “ancient text” should contain.) Noel Reynolds was, I think, the first to suggest (a few decades ago) that 1 Nephi through 2 Nephi 5 is composed primarily to establish Nephi as the rightful heir of Lehi’s possessions (brass plates, sword of Laban, Liahona), family authority, and religious authority (including prophetic duties and temple worship). Nephi doesn’t even start this account until 30 years after they have left Jerusalem, and writes it only after he has already written the more detailed and (apparently) historical version of their journey.
    The real truth, though, is that critics such as RT and Jenkins will always continue to move the goalposts, because they start with an a priori assumption that the Book of Mormon is a modern fabrication, and therefore no evidence will ever be sufficient or acceptable. Someone — it may have been Dan Peterson — tells of having a conversation with Jerald and/or Susan Tanner (long-established anti-Mormon critics, for those unfamiliar with them) and asking them, “What archaeological evidence would you accept as supporting the Book of Mormon? If an independently verifiable, properly dated inscription of a key Book of Mormon name were found in, say, Central America, would that make you reconsider?” And the answer was, in effect, “No.”
    But the Lord knew all this. “Behold, if they will not believe my words, they would not believe you, my servant Joseph, if it were possible that you should show them all these things which I have committed unto you.” (D&C 5:7)

    • “The real truth, though, is that critics such as RT and Jenkins will always continue to move the goalposts, because they start with an a priori assumption that the Book of Mormon is a modern fabrication, and therefore no evidence will ever be sufficient or acceptable.”
      That’s the crux of the problem. We can hardly begin to have a conversation with the critics unless they are willing to entertain the fleeting notion that — for argument’s sake — the Book of Mormon might be what it purports to be.
      That said, I think Jeff has done an excellent job in addressing the facts of the argument. I am personally grateful for his contributions as well those of other faithful LDS apologists. My faith has been shored up on more than one occasion by their keen insight and discernment of the facts.

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

All comments are moderated to ensure respectful discourse. It is assumed that it is possible to disagree agreeably and intelligently and comments that intend to increase overall understanding are particularly encouraged.

Close this window

Top of Page

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This