A Book of Mormon tour

[why_me]

In relation to the witnesses, I thought it would be appropriate to quote from the article I linked to above regarding Oliver Cowdrey. There is strong reason to believe Oliver denied his testimony.

Anti mormon sites just don’t cut it. Try this one:

olivercowdery.com/history/Cdryhst2.htm

lightplanet.com/mormons/people/oliver_cowdery.html

In 1847 Oliver moved to Wisconsin, where he continued his law practice and was almost elected to the first state legislature, in spite of newspaper accounts ridiculing his published declaration of seeing the angel and the plates. In his ten years outside the Church, Cowdery never succumbed to the considerable pressure to deny his Book of Mormon testimony. Indeed, letters to his LDS relatives show that he was hurt at the Church’s rejection but remained a deep believer. Feeling that his character had been slandered, he asked for public exoneration, explaining that anyone would be sensitive about reputation “had you stood in the presence of John with our departed Brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood, and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater” (Gunn, pp. 250-51).

 

[BartBurk]

Anti mormon sites just don’t cut it. Try this one:

olivercowdery.com/history/Cdryhst2.htm

lightplanet.com/mormons/people/oliver_cowdery.html

In 1847 Oliver moved to Wisconsin, where he continued his law practice and was almost elected to the first state legislature, in spite of newspaper accounts ridiculing his published declaration of seeing the angel and the plates. In his ten years outside the Church, Cowdery never succumbed to the considerable pressure to deny his Book of Mormon testimony. Indeed, letters to his LDS relatives show that he was hurt at the Church’s rejection but remained a deep believer. Feeling that his character had been slandered, he asked for public exoneration, explaining that anyone would be sensitive about reputation “had you stood in the presence of John with our departed Brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood, and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater” (Gunn, pp. 250-51).

But why did he join the Methodist Church in Ohio? There is no doubt he did so – he was a church secretary and we have minutes written in his hand from that church. Do you think that Methodist Church would ever have accepted him if he had not renounced Mormonism? He went back to Mormonism at the end of his life because his health was failing – and he never seemed to have really accepted Utah Mormonism and its polygamy. It’s pretty clear to me that Oliver Cowdrey was a conspirator with Joseph Smith in trying to pawn the Book of Mormon off in a hope to make money from selling it. When that failed, they created a religion out of it and tried to make a living that way. Cowdrey was about the least credible witness out there. It is quite interesting that his life prior to Mormonism seems to have been completely hidden although Dale Broadhurst and some others have been doing a wonderful job of providing us with a few details about his pre-Mormon reputation as a pamphlet salesman and printer.

 

[majick275]

Anti mormon sites just don’t cut it. Try this one:

olivercowdery.com/history/Cdryhst2.htm

lightplanet.com/mormons/people/oliver_cowdery.html

In 1847 Oliver moved to Wisconsin, where he continued his law practice and was almost elected to the first state legislature, in spite of newspaper accounts ridiculing his published declaration of seeing the angel and the plates. In his ten years outside the Church, Cowdery never succumbed to the considerable pressure to deny his Book of Mormon testimony. Indeed, letters to his LDS relatives show that he was hurt at the Church’s rejection but remained a deep believer. Feeling that his character had been slandered, he asked for public exoneration, explaining that anyone would be sensitive about reputation “had you stood in the presence of John with our departed Brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood, and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater” (Gunn, pp. 250-51).

but facts do cut it. we have the church registry with his signature in it still extant!!!. he was in ohio! we also have the Wisconsin state bar records available…he never practiced law there! oliver was shady character just like the other BoM “witnesses”.

 

[majick275]

What made their character questionable? David Whitmer was highly respected as was Martin Harris. The others seem quite okay too.

by whom was whitmer so respected?

he was excommunicated by the LDS after the kirtland bank failure. he and his associates refused to give up their personal property and were forcibly expelled by the mormons. thety sued to regain theri property triggering the “mormon war”. whitmer himself said that if you believed his testimony then you should believe that JS had lost his way and needed to be replaced. he was a con artist who lost a power struggle over the scam. he even started his own church.

Martin Harris??? are you joking? he was a laughing stock for his wide variety of “visions” throughout his life. harris was exed in the same group as whitmer for calling the Kirtland bank a fraud. he had to come slinking back later because his group disowned him. he said himself he had a stronger testimony of the roll and book of the shakers than the BoM. he joined churches as a hobby. believing all of them. hardly a credible witness.

as to the others…cowdery is the most problematic. kirtland bank president, smith cousin, in on the initial scam, evidence he recanted his testimony, etc. as to the others they were all members of the smith or whitmer families…hardly credible.

 

[tommiatkins]

no we have 11 people of very questionable character, all of whom were close friends//relatives of JS who CLAIMED to see the plates. quite frankly there is a stronger case for the loch ness monster and if we stick to religion the koran has a far greater claim than the BoM…and we KNOW it’s false.

Yup, you would need 12 not 11 people for it to be cast iron absolute proof, worth fighting, dying, and killing for. And their names need to be Matthew,John,Luke… Things like that

 

[Strevel]

We know the Jews were not in slavery in eygpt, that they diddnt live 40 years in a desert, that there wasnt a flood, that the world is 4 billion years old, that man evolved from primates.
If i had to list the fallacies, i’d need a supply of keyboards and this whole year …Mormonism is indeed provably mad. But no more so than Islam or Judaism/Christianity

There is in all faiths an element of “strangelings”. We as Catholics are no different. The actions of these strangelings are, well, sometimes strange. hahaha I would see people in the LDS Church praying for personal revelation on who they shod marry as if it were a contract and they were seeking clarification! I see catholics kneeling in Church bofefore a representation of a person asking what to do. My response to both is to make up your own darn mind and leave God and the Saints alone. I am sure they have enough stuff to keep them busy as it is. There is a God, a Jesus and there is no JS in the Heavens. Man screws things up when we are left to our own best devices.
The best thing (IMHO, of course) is for us to reflect on the values, standards and ethics we have internalised and do the best we can with what we have developed. That is what it will boil down to anyhow. So, just get to the darned point and make it happen…stop wasting time that is limited. From my experience as a Mormon serving a Mission, going to the Temple, teaching Elders Quorum and being Ward Clerk, …Mormons are not so much a Christian Faith as a group that fell on fertile soil (Not Gods doings but a social twist) and grew in the distance of the then west, modern day Utah. At that time in history even God did not go that far out west without prior arrangements. … I still have quite a large number of Mormon friends that speak to me of their doughts as well because I still love them, not as a potential convert, but as a friend. Some are now Bishops, two are Stake Presidents and all were Missionary Buds and Companions, school mates, etc… They have the mask of Stern strong testimoneys, but in truth are wondering humans as we all are. They just have a strong loyalty to a Grimms Fairy Tale or Cook Book called the Book of Mormon. They also refuse, for the most part, to think rationally. Blue is green, red is three, etc…
When Christ gave us the Church, (Peter) (and in my humble opinion) he was wise enough to leave it in the hands of humans, falable humans. We learn from that as well, so it is all a growth issue. We must be goooood Catholics, enjoy our baptismd, Church Friends and functions and be the best we can be. We must invite, pick up, sit with and take home our Friends that are not Catholics yet.
OK, I’ll shut up now. Et cum Spiritou…
Don in Memphis for the day:thumbsup:

 

[RebeccaJ]

:coffeeread:

We called them “fringies”, as they were on the fringes. In the case of Mormonism, their fringies are on the fringes of a fringe religion.

 

[tommiatkins]

There is in all faiths an element of “strangelings”. We as Catholics are no different. The actions of these strangelings are, well, sometimes strange. hahaha I would see people in the LDS Church praying for personal revelation on who they shod marry as if it were a contract and they were seeking clarification! I see catholics kneeling in Church bofefore a representation of a person asking what to do. My response to both is to make up your own darn mind and leave God and the Saints alone. I am sure they have enough stuff to keep them busy as it is. There is a God, a Jesus and there is no JS in the Heavens. Man screws things up when we are left to our own best devices.
The best thing (IMHO, of course) is for us to reflect on the values, standards and ethics we have internalised and do the best we can with what we have developed. That is what it will boil down to anyhow. So, just get to the darned point and make it happen…stop wasting time that is limited. From my experience as a Mormon serving a Mission, going to the Temple, teaching Elders Quorum and being Ward Clerk, …Mormons are not so much a Christian Faith as a group that fell on fertile soil (Not Gods doings but a social twist) and grew in the distance of the then west, modern day Utah. At that time in history even God did not go that far out west without prior arrangements. … I still have quite a large number of Mormon friends that speak to me of their doughts as well because I still love them, not as a potential convert, but as a friend. Some are now Bishops, two are Stake Presidents and all were Missionary Buds and Companions, school mates, etc… They have the mask of Stern strong testimoneys, but in truth are wondering humans as we all are. They just have a strong loyalty to a Grimms Fairy Tale or Cook Book called the Book of Mormon. They also refuse, for the most part, to think rationally. Blue is green, red is three, etc…
When Christ gave us the Church, (Peter) (and in my humble opinion) he was wise enough to leave it in the hands of humans, falable humans. We learn from that as well, so it is all a growth issue. We must be goooood Catholics, enjoy our baptismd, Church Friends and functions and be the best we can be. We must invite, pick up, sit with and take home our Friends that are not Catholics yet.
OK, I’ll shut up now. Et cum Spiritou…
Don in Memphis for the day:thumbsup:

Strev . Thats a well presented answer.

You seem to advocate that an initial truth has been lost despite the churches effeorts for good and ill, and that the true god relies within the personal relationship?

 

[zerinus]

As a result of our exchanges on the other thread, I became kind of interested to find out more about you, so I decided to look up your previous posts to learn more about your background and views; hence my reply to this post, and possibly some other posts.

I have seen these Mormon missionaries and their tactics at work up close. My father’s ex-wife became a Mormon shortly before the dissolution of their marriage, and actually, her conversion (from some sort of vague, nominally Christian belief) to Mormonism proved to be a big strain that actually helped to destroy their marriage. So much for “families being together forever” or whatever nonsense the LDS uses to hook people.

I will not put down Mormon missionaries even though they helped to destroy my family at one point, . . .

It looks like the marriage of your father and his ex-wife was already on the rocks, before the missionaries met her; so why you are blaming it on them I have no idea. Mormonism does not destroy anybody’s marriage. If anybody’t marriage is destroyed, it is the choice of the married partners themselves, not of Mormonism.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

OK, now it’s my turn to be very late to the party, but regarding this “Reformed Egyptian” idea…it’s total malarkey! Egyptian began to be written in the Demotic script around 660 BC, then in Coptic starting in the 4th century AD. Coptic ceased to exist as an everyday spoken language sometime in the 17th century, but is still used by Coptic Christians in their liturgies.

Here is why this idea is ridiculously unbelievable for me: If Wikipedia has it correct, the plates bearing “Reformed Egyptian” were written sometime between 600 BC and 421 AD. Convenient dates, given how closely they mirror the facts known during Smith’s day about Egyptian language and writing systems. Unfortunately for Smith, as I wrote above, anything written in any form of Egyptian prior to ~660 BC would’ve been written in hierogylphs, whereas anything after that up to the 4th century would’ve been written in Demotic, and anything after that in Coptic which we really needn’t concern ourselves with (Coptic is written in an adapted Greek script, and besides it is mostly outside our time frame). . . .

That is just a ridiculous objection, as mentioned in the other thread. The Reformed Egyption that the Book of Mormon refers to was developed by the Nephite people who lived in total isolation from any developments that might have taken place on the Western Hemisphere. It is something that was totally indegenous to them. It was not a derivative of anything that might have taken place in the Mesopotamian region in the same period of time. You just cannot compare the two, or expect to find a reference to either in the one or other place.

So, if these plates were really “Egyptian”, they more than likely would have been written in Demotic, since the majority of the BOM’s stated time frame was during the Demotic period. Here’s the clincher: Thomas Young deciphered the Demotic script in 1814! Smith claims to have received the plates in 1827, and didn’t publish his book until 1830, so all this “seer stone” nonesense is pretty laughable. Of course, it is possible that Smith could have not known about this INCREDIBLY FAMOUS piece of linguistic history, but considering how close his book just happens to give the dates of the Demotic script’s birth and death, I’m not willing to say that it’s more likely a coincidence than not. Egyptology was very much en vogue during Smith’s time, and discoveries made during his lifetime would’ve made interest in Egyptian language a much more popular topic among average people than it is today.

It should be noted, in case Mormons think they can use this in their favor, that the first complete translation of the Rosetta Stone (from which the Demotic was deciphered) was not published until 1858, but this was because Jean-Francois Champollion did not complete his work on the heiroglyphic portion of the Rosetta Stone until several years after Thomas Young’s translation of the Demotic. This is not a problem, however, as Champollion DID publish his translation of the heiroglyphs in 1822, still five years before Smith received the plates. So, no matter what was on the plates, if it was written in ANY kind of Egyptian that has ever existed anywhere on the face of the planet, it would have been readable in 1827 without the use of any special equipment, just an interest in Egypt and a newspaper from within the previous 5 to 13 years.

Apparently it was readable, because Martin Harris reported to Joseph Smith that Professor Charles Anthon and Dr Mitchell who saw a transcript of the engravings said that they were true characters, and the translation of them had been correct.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

That is just a ridiculous objection, as mentioned in the other thread. The Reformed Egyption that the Book of Mormon refers to was developed by the Nephite people who lived in total isolation from any developments that might have taken place on the Western Hemisphere. It is something that was totally indegenous to them. It was not a derivative of anything that might have taken place in the Mesopotamian region in the same period of time. You just cannot compare the two, or expect to find a reference to either in the one or other place.

Apparently it was readable, because Martin Harris reported to Joseph Smith that Professor Charles Anthon and Dr Mitchell who saw a transcript of the engravings said that they were true characters, and the translation of them had been correct.

zerinus

so how pray tell could anthon read and verify the accuracy of the translation of a language that you claim cam e about in total isolation using egyptian as a basis when no one could read egyptian at that time and no one had even heard of or seen “reformed egyptian”? Harris lied. wasn’t the first time or the last. according to harris they were a jumble of multiple languages. anyone who has read what ANTHON said knows that they were scribblings of gibberish. look at them for yourself and see.

 

[Jerusha]

lds-mormon.com/anthon.shtml

 

[Strevel]

Strev . Thats a well presented answer.

You seem to advocate that an initial truth has been lost despite the churches effeorts for good and ill, and that the true god relies within the personal relationship?

Hi Tom,
Thanks for your post. I do not believe that an initial truth has been lost in regards to anything related to the Catholic Church. I love the Church like I loved my “Momma”, Granny and Grmps! I know that they have been around a lot longer than I have and have more experiences and knowledge equally. In fact, I believe that truths have been shared and used through the only correct and authorised tool the Lord gave us, Holy Mother Church. The question is, “Can I obsorb them and use them?? The true God is there no matter whether we are or not. God is always there. It is more of a question of “are WE there”. I want to have as deep and personal (I hate the use of that word because of the preconcieved notions it gives rise to) of a relationship with God / Jesus/ Saints / Church as realistically possible. It is a force that refines us and causes growth. However the way we percieve God does not change the reality of Gods nature. I hear people say that they have a personal relationship with God and I have to think that it is a unilateral relationship. They have a relationship with " their perception of God”, and not God.
As I percieve it, and opening myself to the teachings of the Church, this personal relationship stuff is a Protestant, good, yet unChristian teaching. To think that we can have a deep and abiding personal relationship with God, as a Pauper might have a relationship with the Queen of England??? is trying to compensate for them having nothing really to offer. No sacraments, no tradition and …well, nada. So, they give them 1) a good feeling on a 2) false premise. Unless it comes out of Rome, said “in cathedral” by those authorised for that dictum, …nope. I like being Catholic, I don’t want to mix, if you will allow me this analogy, I do not want to mix my “delicious tea” with their “pagan Kool Aid”. We are not Protestants formed for political reasons, we are Catholics, formed by Christ.
We use the Bible, with the books only we remember. The others took them out. We do not create books by convienient so called revelation. We have Nuns and Priests in Churches older than languages and cultures. When some of them were built the builders actually gave directives and jokes in Latin! The plans were in Latin. We have credability, the book of Mormon is nothing more than the musings of a missguided man that history shows looked into hats to tell the futures of others. WHAT! Moses did this? I think not!.
For the Mormons that read this, …I am pleased to share my testimoney that Joseph Smith was not a Prophet. No matter how often you hear it, reality is not changed by redundantcy. JS was not a prophet. The Book of Mormon does not balance with truth. Truth cannot be created to fill in the historical holes in the BOM. Thomas S. Monson is not a Prophet. Funny thing is that in the privacy of your heart and mind, you even have said this truth. You have old unfounded questions that have been avoided and you have been “looked at” for asking!
Wanna know truth, visit and sit quietly in your local Catholic Church. It will be different because it is supposed to be. Do not participate, just enjoy.
ok, I’ve got work to do. I will be more brief later and can take ten pages to tell you about it!
Verbum Verbose!

Don in Vegas.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That is just a ridiculous objection, as mentioned in the other thread. The Reformed Egyption that the Book of Mormon refers to was developed by the Nephite people who lived in total isolation from any developments that might have taken place on the Western Hemisphere. It is something that was totally indegenous to them. It was not a derivative of anything that might have taken place in the Mesopotamian region in the same period of time. You just cannot compare the two, or expect to find a reference to either in the one or other place.

Apparently it was readable, because Martin Harris reported to Joseph Smith that Professor Charles Anthon and Dr Mitchell who saw a transcript of the engravings said that they were true characters, and the translation of them had been correct.

zerinus

Wait a minute, let’s tell it the way it was. First, here’s Jospeh Smith’s account of what Harris told him:

According to an account which Joseph Smith attributed to Harris, Anthon “stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. [Harris] then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters.” According to the same account, Anthon provided Harris with a certificate as to the veracity of the characters but tore it up after learning the characters were copied from a book said to have been delivered by an angel. Regardless of whether or not Anthon ever wrote such a certificate, it is highly unlikely that Anthon would have been able to read Egyptian hieroglyphs in the late 1820s when Harris showed him the writing specimen because during this period Egyptology was in its infancy. In any case, after his visit with Anthon, Harris was willing to mortgage his farm to publish the Book of Mormon, although it is also possible that his eagerness was based (as he boasted to his wife and sister-in-law) on his belief that the Book of Mormon would be a financial windfall.

Now let’s see what Professor Charles Anthon said:

Anthon believed “reformed Egyptian” to be a hoax:

The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be “reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics” is perfectly false. Some years ago, a plain, and apparently simple-hearted farmer, called upon me… Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax …On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money, and I communicated my suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues. He requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving, and he then took his leave carrying the paper with him. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calendar given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived… the paper contained any thing else but “Egyptian Hieroglyphics.”

God Bless,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Strevel]

Wait a minute, let’s tell it the way it was. First, here’s Jospeh Smith’s account of what Harris told him:

Now let’s see what Professor Charles Anthon said:

God Bless,
Prodigal Son1

With respect to unsteady emotion to the contrary, the BOM is still an Aesops Fable. It cannot garner beauty by standing next to beauty, credability by standing next to the credible., nor scriptural integrity by calling itself so.
I can call myself Augustus of Rome, …taint gonna make it so. I can stand next to his statue and nothing of his character or life come off on me.
While others may have information third hand at best the basic premis is still correct. The Book of Mormon is false and is a waste of good paper. It is recordings of a missguided filanderer (check your history) who …well, you know where I am going.

Don

 

[jbrdu08]

Amazing how someone can make claims without a shred of evidence, I mean NONE, and have thousands upon thousands of people believe it. At least the Bible is supported by Archaeological evidence and is attested to by contemporary authors. It’s amazing to me how we’re supposed to believe that these people were advanced enough to make a ship to cross the Atlantic, but didn’t leave behind any verifiable trace of their supposed civilization.

Actually as a history major and a studying archaeologist, archaeological evidence is found for both the bible and the BoM, but no proof. Archaeologist Michael Coe has said not even the best and most advanced research has established on purely archaeological grounds the historical details of the bible, for example the existence of Jesus Christ." Sorry guys there is historical evidence, but no proof. such as a body. remember I have no religious biased.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Actually as a history major and a studying archaeologist, archaeological evidence is found for both the bible and the BoM, but no proof. Archaeologist Michael Coe has said not even the best and most advanced research has established on purely archaeological grounds the historical details of the bible, for example the existence of Jesus Christ." Sorry guys there is historical evidence, but no proof. such as a body. remember I have no religious biased.

archaeological evidence for the BoM…where?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Actually as a history major and a studying archaeologist, archaeological evidence is found for both the bible and the BoM, but no proof. Archaeologist Michael Coe has said not even the best and most advanced research has established on purely archaeological grounds the historical details of the bible, for example the existence of Jesus Christ." Sorry guys there is historical evidence, but no proof. such as a body. remember I have no religious biased.

And again we see a FAIR argument.

Here is a quote from Michael Coe from the PBS documentary.
*
There’s a lot of biblical archaeology, of course, and everybody who is a believing Jew or Christian is always hoping that hard evidence is going to show up for one thing or the other. And there is a lot of evidence that events in the Bible really did happen. I mean, there really is a Jericho; there really is Jerusalem to be excavated. And of course the Romans did know about Christ; there’s no doubt about that. …

In the case of the Book of Mormon, you’ve got a much bigger problem. You really do. We have another part of the world where the archaeology is really very well known now; we know a lot about people like the Maya and their predecessors. So to try to find unlikely evidence in an unlikely spot, you’ve got a problem. And of course none of the finds that biblical archaeologists are rightly proud about, no finds on that level have ever come up for Mormon archaeologists, which makes it a big problem.

How do they cope with this? I’ll be the first to admit I don’t know; I really don’t. I don’t really know how my friends that are Mormon archaeologists cope with this non-evidence, the fact that the evidence really hasn’t shown up – how they make the jump from the data to faith or from faith back to the data, because the data and the faith are two different worlds. There’s simply no way to bring them together. …*

Seems he saying that there is some evidence supporting some events described in Christianity but nil for LDS tales in this hemishpere.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

With respect to unsteady emotion to the contrary, the BOM is still an Aesops Fable. It cannot garner beauty by standing next to beauty, credability by standing next to the credible., nor scriptural integrity by calling itself so.
I can call myself Augustus of Rome, …taint gonna make it so. I can stand next to his statue and nothing of his character or life come off on me.
While others may have information third hand at best the basic premis is still correct. The Book of Mormon is false and is a waste of good paper. It is recordings of a missguided filanderer (check your history) who …well, you know where I am going.

Don

I know and I agree. It was posted that Professor Anthon, according to Harris through Joseph Smith, validated the “reformed Egyptian” writings.

I posted what Professor Anthon, himself, said, “The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be “reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics” is perfectly false.”

Harris was under the impression of a financial windfall coming his way if he financed the BoM. Professor Anthon had nothing to gain or lose. He was only concerned that Harris was being cheated out of his money.

God Bless,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Jerusha]

archaeological evidence for the BoM…where?

If he is talking about this
http://www.heritage.nf.ca/exploration/images/lamsite_200.jpg
L’Anse Aux Meadows

or this
http://www.wallywonderswhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/greenland-church-thumb.jpg
Norse Church ruins on Greenland

then it tears the BOM to shreds.

Wrong people, wrong timeline, but a closer look reveals that the Viking story is strongly parallel to the underlying core text.