Evidence for or against "The Book Of Mormon".

[Gottle_of_Geer]

oat soda:

give me a break. you’re really trying hard to find a hebrew origin. nearly all the other names are right out of the KJV. what is the hebrew origin of moroni or mormon? where did it come from? so jered or jared is from the bible. nephishesim is from the book of nehemiah.

if i claimed that an ancient race of people descended from the greeks inhabited australia in the 4th century b.c., would you believe me? no, because unless there is substantial evidence, it’s a fantasy. just like the BOM.

Is Nephi an independent name in Hebrew, though ?​

And while /Ab\ can be rendered as “father” - is “Abinadi” Hebrew, and if so, what does it mean ? Showing that part of a name is or might be Hebrew, does not mean that the entire name is Hebrew. If there were someone called Antoniah [This is a fictitious example, in case anyone is wondering], the presence of Latin and Hebrew elements in such a name would not be proof that such a person existed, in a Latin-Hebrew setting: it would be evidence that someone knew a name or two in both languages - and not that the whole name could be resolved into one language or other, or into any language.

Names which are identical with names found in the OT - Jared, Laban, Enoch, Lemuel - are not a problem: names which are not, are a different matter: what are the origins of names such as Limhi, Coriantumr, Shiz, Zarahemla, Amgid, Comnor, for example ? ##

 

[Jerusha]

G of G:

The way I have put things together-- yes, the Celts are said to have some distant connection with the near East, as are all of the Indo-European-speaking peoples. Again, I would not be surprised if there was some small amount of linguistic evidence between Irish and Indian languages from the Northeastern part of the US. Most exchange in ancient Irish literature appears to be accidental.

The way I read the Legend of Atlantis is that-- by oral legend, it compounds two stories: the explosion of the island of Santorin or Thera in the Aegean, which eclipsed civilization, and possibly is connected with the events of the book of Exodus, and, because of that eclipse of civilization, knowlege of the Western Continents was lost. After, when people tried to sail West on the Atlantic, they ended up at the Sargasso sea, thought it was the wreckage of “Atlantis”, and turned back. Not as far-out as your statement, if you think about it.

 

[Casen]

I’m not following the logic that says all Book of Mormon names need to have a Hebrew origin for the book to be true? The fact that there are a bunch that do indeed have Hebrew origins is pretty interesting to me.

And what of the fact that the name “Alma” appears throughout the Book of Mormon as a man’s name while in the United States the name has always been considered a woman’s name. Yet, in the 1960s Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin discovered the Hebrew male name “Alma ben Yehuda”, concluding that Alma was indeed an authentic Hebrew male name. Was this just one more “lucky guess” by 24 year old Joseph Smith??

No one in this thread seems to be addressing these issues. Instead we are thrown tangents such as the Kinderhook plates and other things that have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

 

[wademann]

## satan can’t be summonsed or interviewed - so arguments which bring in allegedly satanic activity may be as easily denied as affirmed. ##

That’s the point I was trying to make. I can throw out refutable evidence or opinion all day long, and can back it up with heavy circumstantial evidence just as Gryskull or anyone else can.

What is wrong with this:​

Major premise: True prophets are persecuted
Minor premise: I am persecuted
Conclusion: I am a true prophet.

The problem is, that persons who claim to be prophets may be prosecuted, not persecuted, for unprophetly activites: such as fraud, murder, or a host of criminal activities. That is why St. Peter writes: “If any of you should suffer, let him suffer as a Christian…”

Lots of causes & organisations do very well despite opposition: Nazism, Communism, Christianity, Islam, Protestantism, are just a few. Mormonism’s early troubles are no evidence of anything either supernatural or even morally good. Mormonism can perfectly well be something less than Divinely approved - just as the position of its critics implies.

No movement is wholly bad - even Fascism has the virtue of insisting on obedience (albeit a warped sort of obedience); and Mormonism has its virtues too: if it were utterly foul from top to bottom, no body would touch it. But it’s not - so people are attracted to it. That is not, however, an argument that it is a good thing in itself; if it is to be shown to be theologically legitimate, a far stronger case for it needs to be made.

Mormons were in the fortunate position of being able to escape opposition by moving West & consolidating themselves as a society. Having martyrs and a holy book or two, and the beginnings of a priesthood, can hardly have hindered them. And schism has the helpful effect of getting rid of the self-selected dissidents, and so, of increasing the cohesion of the group. Add someone with the abilities of Brigham Young as a ruler and guide, war-leader and disciplinarian, and the boost given to Mormonism by incoming - and rootless - settlers and emigrants; and it would have been amazing if Mormonism had *not *flourished. ##

I doubt the the mormons who settled in the middle of nowhere, felt so fortunate at the time. It was through much suffering and a strong testimony that they prevailed. If the pope told the catholics to leave all that they had behind except what they could carry in a handcart and follow him to the middle of the desert to start there own community, how many do think would do it? would you?

 

[wademann]

Hey GOG,

 

[wademann]

Hey GOG,

the other part of my post got stuck the second pharagraph of your quote. I 'm still trying to figure this computer stuff out.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

mormon fool:

I addressed what the Hebrew meaning of Moroni in post 26 and provided a link to Casen’s Tvedtnes source, which I invite you to check out if you are brave enough.

The cumulative case has to be considered. You are right that some Hebrew names are similiar to those found in the Bible and some are not.

What do you do with with the Hebrew names that are not found in the Bible but are found in other sources not accessible to Joseph Smith like Alma?

Alma can be explained as Latin, and Hebrew:​

alma = nourishing (as in alma mater)

and

alma[h] = young woman (see Isaiah 7.14 for a famous example)

2think.org/hundredsheep/boa/zucker.shtml

may be interesting - Smith, who learned Hebrew from one Andrew Seixas, after the publication of the BoM, may have picked up some earlier on. ##

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

Oh no here goes.

I would suggest that the survival of the early church is only a problem for non-Christian religions. Christians believe that Christ was the Son of God. He chose Apostles to spread his message. He promised the Holy Spirit would be with believers. Christians do not have a problem seeing divine protection in the early church.

Also, while I agree with AugustineH354 that the Apostasy must have occurred at the end of the public ministry of the apostles (generally their death), I would suggest that there was a valid lesser authority that continued to shepherd the truth and aided in the formation of the Bible (this is a James Barker idea and he suggests that this lesser authority slowly vanished after the development that accepted heretical baptism). The survival of the Early Church as a group that formed the Bible and preserved the witness of Christ was integral to the Restoration in my eyes.

Non-LDS are not able to similarly explain the survival of the early CoJCoLDS, but I would agree the persecution while quite powerful was not as powerful as the persecution of the Early Church.

Charity, TOm

Could be that I’m tired right now…but I didn’t get this. What were you trying to say?

 

[petra]

Also, the very DNA research itself is of limited value for the following reason:

*DNA and the Book of Mormon * by David Stewart, M.D.

Mitochondrial DNA is of limited value in assessing the overall heredity of populations, as an individual’s entire mitochondrial DNA comes from a single female ancestor. Mitochondrial DNA, as researchers point out, tends to be inherited from relatively recent generations. If one assumes one generation every twenty-five years or four generations per century, if we go back just one thousand years, there are over one trillion ancestor slots (1,099,511,627,776, to be precise). If we go back to the beginning of the Book of Mormon Lehite era in 600 BC, there would be 2.02 x 10^31 ancestor slots, yet mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from a single ancestor. The phenomena of genetic drift, founder effect, etc. can easily lead to specific mitochondrial DNA signatures being lost from an entire population.

*We know from the Old Testament that non-Israelite mitochondrial DNA was introduced into ancient Israel on a systematic basis. . . .

The DNA trends we see in modern Jewish diaspora populations of having few male founders and many diverse female founders had begun even before the dispersion. Given the frequent warfare between Israel and its neighbors described in the Old Testament, we would expect the mitochondrial “pool” of ancient Israel at the time of the captivity to include influences from much of the known world. For these reasons, modern mtDNA studies appear to offer little if any value in ascertaining Israelite ancestry*.

Well, the DNA evidence was compelling enough for this Ph.D.: exmormon.org/whylft125.htm, as well as a professor at BYU.

99% of the native American lineages were brought in over 12,000 years ago. This is far too early for the BoM story and the “mitochondrial pool dispersion theory.” And the remaining 1% of the populations that arrived since that time cannot nearly account for the large civilization that the BoM describes.

The statement made by David Stewart is misleading. The “trillions of ancestor slots” that are possible in the Hebrew population sidesteps the fact that mtDNA is inherited identically and faithfully from the parent. There is not the mixing and matching of gene pairs between parents that you would see for eye color, etc. While the average mtDNA makeup of a population may change, the same mtDNA will be shared by kids, parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, ad infinitum. Furthermore, in spite of the intermarriages and warfare conquests, the Hebrew gene pool would still be Middle Eastern (Egyptians, Syrians, etc.) The Far Eastern peoples were completely isolated from the rest of the world for millenia. Europe was also quite remote and isolated from the Middle East during the time in question.

But for the sake of argument, let’s set aside the X-chromosome mitrochondrial data. Yet the data also shows that Y-chromosome studies, which trace male migrations, indicates that 90% of the above population originated from the Far East (Mongolia) and 10% from Europe. European lineages are extremely distinct from that of Middle Easterns. There is absolutely no DNA evidence (from either X or Y chromosome studies) of Middle Eastern peoples coming to America before Columbus’ time.

David Stewart’s argument falls apart for 2 reasons: 1) The Y-chromosome data shows not a single instance of Hebrew lineage. 2) Assuming the introduction of other non-Hebrew Middle Eastern X-chromosome mtDNA, the data still shows not a single instance of Middle Eastern mtDNA.

As an aside, in a pro-BoM article that I read, the author goes to great lengths to support the theory of ancient trans-oceanic travel to America. So what? That only proves how migration may have occurred. It does nothing to prove who migrated. The DNA evidence tells us that. Therefore, the trans-oceanic travel theory simply suggests that Mongolians may have come to the Americas on boat rather than, or in addition to, a previously exposed land bridge in Alaska.

The fact remains that there is credible evidence to disprove the notion that the so-called Lost Tribes of Israel migrated to America.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Casen:

I’m not following the logic that says all Book of Mormon names need to have a Hebrew origin for the book to be true? The fact that there are a bunch that do indeed have Hebrew origins is pretty interesting to me.

My name’s Hebrew - but I’m not Jewish or a Hebrew-speaker ​

This board is full of Michaels (at least four so far) & Johns & Davids, and it would be surprising if there were not a lot of other Hebrew names borne by people here. ##

And what of the fact that the name “Alma” appears throughout the Book of Mormon as a man’s name while in the United States the name has always been considered a woman’s name.

That will have less force for those of who are outside the States, I think​

Yet, in the 1960s Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin discovered the Hebrew male name “Alma ben Yehuda”, concluding that Alma was indeed an authentic Hebrew male name. Was this just one more “lucky guess” by 24 year old Joseph Smith??

The important thing is, that the word was available - even if not in the context and usage in which it appears in the BoM.​

The Alma was a battle during the Crimean War - that is no evidence that those who named the place Alma had Hebrew or Latin words in mind. The appearance a word has in English, is not always a safe guide to its true meaning.

So, the use of Alma as a masculine name was not something of which Smith needed to be aware: all he needed, was a word or name which would fit the BoM. So its being a true masculine name in Hebrew, is not a proof of the BoM’s divine origin - the name can be accounted for without being evidence (let alone proof) of the inspiration of the text it occurs in.

Take the name “Sharon” - that was used long before most of us had heard of Ariel Sharon. Those who used it for their daughters were not prophets - they were familiar, at first or second hand, with the mentions of Sharon in the OT. The coincidence of form between the name in the OT, the name as a girl’s name, and the name of the Israeli politician, is no evidence that all three are related. So with the use of (in this case) Alma in the BoM.

“Rover” functions as:

a name for a dog
a name for a make of car
a common noun denoting a wanderer.

If I call a dog “Rover”, I may be doing so with these other uses of that word in mind - then again, I might not. I may do so, simply because I like the name, or because it has been used for a family pet before. Or for all five reasons, or for one only. ##

No one in this thread seems to be addressing these issues. Instead we are thrown tangents such as the Kinderhook plates and other things that have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

I’m sorry that you find that - I’ve been trying to address the subject of the thread, and to read both sides’ arguments.​

 

[mormon_fool]

## Alma can be explained as Latin, and Hebrew:

alma = nourishing (as in alma mater)

and

alma[h] = young woman (see Isaiah 7.14 for a famous example)

2think.org/hundredsheep/boa/zucker.shtml

may be interesting - Smith, who learned Hebrew from one Andrew Seixas, after the publication of the BoM, may have picked up some earlier on. ##

Thanks for bringing the Latin Alma references up, my link and Casen in #142 have already covered why it is significant. Yes, Alma is both Latin and Hebrew, in Latin it’s feminine and in Hebrew it is masculine. In Smith’s time the latter usage was completely unknown, so having him pick up Hebrew early on doesn’t explain anything. Alma in the Book of Mormon is male.

 

[DeFide]

mormon fool:

How about reading pro-LDS article, say here, addressing the same material and see if you can draw the same conclusion. I getting worn out by all the topic shifts, but thanks for your continued interest.

I don’t know if Smith committed his translation to paper, but it’s clear he did translate them, at least to some extent, with specificity. Your link actually confirms the claims of the Kinderhook link:

As noted above, both the Clayton journal and the History of the Church claim that Joseph Smith “translated a portion” of the Kinderhook plates and found that they contain the history of “a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt…” Besides these references, there is other contemporary evidence that Joseph Smith “translated a portion” of the plates. On May 7, 1843, Apostle Parley P. Pratt wrote a letter containing the following:
" 'Six plates having the appearance of Brass have lately been dug out of the mound by a gentleman in Pike Co. Illinois. They are small and filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredite back to Ham the son of Noah" (The Ensign, August 1981, page 73)

The reader will notice that Apostle Pratt’s account agrees with that published in the History of the Church in stating that the Kinderhook plates contain information about a descendant of “Ham.”

…]

There is definite proof that Joseph Smim claimed he had translated a portion of the plates. The evidence comes from the diary of William Clayton, Joseph Smith’s private secretary. Clayton wrote the following:“I have seen 6 brass plates… covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.” (William Clayton’s Journal, May 1, 1843, as cited in Trials of Discipleship - The Story of William Clayton, a Mormon, page 117)

The information in Clayton’s journal was deemed so important that it was used as a basis for the story of the Kinderhook plates which is printed in the History of the Church. The following is attributed to Joseph Smith:

"I insert facsimiles of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook…

“I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth.” (History of the Church, Vol. 5 page 372)

Since Clayton’s journal was apparently used as the major source for the statement attributed to Joseph Smith in the History of the Church, it shows that the highest leaders of the church at the time the History was compiled believed that Joseph Smith did, in fact, “translate a portion” of the plates. It is evident that President Brigham Young and other church leaders seriously believed in Joseph Smith’s work on the Kinderhook plates for at least eleven years after the plates were discovered.
In 1854, eleven years after Joseph Smith translated a portion of the plates, the account was written into the “Manuscript History of the Church.” Book D-1. It is obvious that the Mormon leaders would never have added this material to the Manuscript History unless they thought it was true.
…
Significantly, over seven pages in the History of the Church are devoted to the Kinderhook plates. These pages not only contain the statement that Joseph Smith translated a portion of the plates but also drawings of the plates (see Vol. 5, pages 372-379)

source: utlm.org/onlineresources/kinderhookplates.htm

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

wademann:

I doubt the the mormons who settled in the middle of nowhere, felt so fortunate at the time. It was through much suffering and a strong testimony that they prevailed. If the pope told the catholics to leave all that they had behind except what they could carry in a handcart and follow him to the middle of the desert to start there own community, how many do think would do it? would you?

I’m sure they didn’t - but their feelings are not germane to the argument about whether Mormonism be Divine or not. I was more intersted in the sociology of Mormonism.​

The point is, that the early years of Mormonism give us a history for them which is perfectly compatible with a non-supernatural explanation.

Strong charismatic leadership can do a great deal to bind a despondent group together - especially if they have an enemy in common.

As to the Pope: he can’t give that kind of command. Papal authority does not extend directly over temporal matters, but indirectly only. So he can discern that a particular law is immoral, and can forbid us to obey it - but, he has to respect the divine origin of the state as well as to maintain the divine origin of the Church. Laws may be iniquitous, authority to make them may be usurped or lacking - but the principles by which a state governs itself must (unless they conflict with the law of Christ, which is the law of charity) be observed.

That’s my understanding of that part of Catholic social doctrine anyway ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

wademann:

Hey GOG,

the other part of my post got stuck the second pharagraph of your quote. I 'm still trying to figure this computer stuff out.

Quotations begin with​

<QUOTE=wademann>

followed by the piece of text being quoted:

Hey GOG

To end a quotation, type:

• but convert the into [square brackets] both times.

Apart from the opening quotation, all quotations begin with

and end with

Remember to convert those into [brackets]. Only that opening quotation includes the =forumusername

See also: forums.catholic-questions.org/misc.php?do=bbcode#quote

Hope that helps ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

mormon fool:

Thanks for bringing the Latin Alma references up, my link and Casen in #142 have already covered why it is significant. Yes, Alma is both Latin and Hebrew, in Latin it’s feminine and in Hebrew it is masculine. In Smith’s time the latter usage was completely unknown, so having him pick up Hebrew early on doesn’t explain anything. Alma in the Book of Mormon is male.

Post 148 should show why the modern confirmation of Alma as a masculine name is unconvincing.​

 

[Casen]

Re: Well, the DNA evidence was compelling enough for this Ph.D.: exmormon.org/whylft125.htm, as well as a professor at BYU.

So there are Ph.D.’s on both sides of the issue. I’m not sure what that proves? In any case, there’s a counter article to Southerton and Murphy here: fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom08.html

RE: 99% of the native American lineages were brought in over 12,000 years ago. This is far too early for the BoM story and the “mitochondrial pool dispersion theory.” And the remaining 1% of the populations that arrived since that time cannot nearly account for the large civilization that the BoM describes.

Again, we don’t know exactly how many different civilizations have existed in the America’s, which ones intermixed, and which ones were isolated. Some theorize that the entire Book of Mormon took place in a relatively small geographic area and that Lehi and his family represented a limited incursion into a large existing population that was already in the Americas. Given this theory it’s highly possible that DNA research would show most Native Americans deriving from Asia without invalidating the text of the Book of Mormon. That’s why I called this issue a “straw man”.

*The scientific use of historical genetics is tracing the spread of humanity throughout the world. It can be used to discuss the flow of populations, but not the complete definition of populations… The inherent problem with tracing historical lines is that they can only trace the information that survives.

The applicability to the Book of Mormon should be evident. The current state of historical genetics tells us what we already knew: the Book of Mormon does not explain the origins of all of the natives of the western hemisphere. However, it is no contradiction to the Book of Mormon, because that isn’t what the Book of Mormon says. It is no contradiction of official Church doctrine, because the Church never had an official doctrine on Book of Mormon geography (or genetics), in spite of the rather obvious popular beliefs.27 Historical genetics cannot say anything about the current understanding of the text because the limited contributions of Book of Mormon Old World genetic material was both small and long enough ago that there are any number of reasons why it could have disappeared from the traceable genetic lines that have currently been discovered.*

From *The Tempest in a Teapot: DNA Studies and the Book of Mormon * by Brant Gardner

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

Could be that I’m tired right now…but I didn’t get this. What were you trying to say?

In post #115 Chris-WA responded to Wademann’s suggestion that the CoJCoLDS survived a great deal of persecution. Part of his response was to suggest that the persecution was not as great as some might think because the young church went west were they could enjoy religious freedom. Part of his response was that the Early Church had greater persecution hefted upon it for a longer period than did the early CoJCoLDS and this was real evidence of divine sanction. He then suggested in light of this fact objective viewers of the Catholic Church would need to acknowledge this divine assistance.

My response was intended to suggest that divine approval of Christianity is something that no Christian should have a problem with so the minefield through which the Early Church negotiated can be viewed by Mormon’s, Protestants, and Catholic as evidence of divine guidance. This does not result in a need to be Catholic. There are some challenges throughout the middle ages that can be view better as Catholic evidences. Times when the Pope seemed locked up in the Vatican about to be denied any influence if I remember correctly. But these are similar (and perhaps less) to the difficulties survived by the early CoJCoLDS.

I do however admit that the odds against the Early Church were greater than those against the early CoJCoLDS (or the middle ages Papal challenges).

But when one draws the parallel they are implicitly saying that while your church’s negotiation of trials is noteworthy, it is nothing compared to this negotiation of trials done by the Catholic Church before Constantine. I suggest that this comparison does not remove any of the force from the apologetic associated with the CoJCoLDS surviving challenges because LDS should acknowledge that God guided the Early Church through similar (or greater) challenges, but that non-LDS generally cannot allow that God guided the early CoJCoLDS through its challenges.

DeFide is correct when he states that many churches survive. I agree this is not some type of slam dunk evidence, but the odds were against the early CoJCoLDS and in many ways to a greater extent than for Protestants, JWs, and SDA.

Charity, TOm

 

[mormon_fool]

DeFide:

Your link actually confirms the claims of the Kinderhook link:

Thanks for taking the time to visit my link. You will notice that the LDS site comes to a very different conclusion:

In summary, there was but a single claim of a “partial translation,” which was contradicted by several claims (both LDS and non-LDS) that the translation hadn’t take place at the time claimed, but was anticipated to be done later (though from then on there wasn’t a chance for a translation to have occurred), and there was marked silence from all quarters where considerable information would be expected–particularly from the one alleged to have done the “translation,” the apostles with whom Joseph met with at the time, and various Church publications that had been used extensively in regards to the verifiable translations of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. There is also circumstantial evidence that no translation could have taken place–at least not of a serious and formal kind.

VS. your previous summary

Next, we have the incident of the Kinderhook Plates, where Smith was exposed as a fraud in his claims to be be a divinely-guided translator and prophet by some folks playing a trick on him:

which you modified somewhat to:

I don’t know if Smith committed his translation to paper, but it’s clear he did translate them, at least to some extent, with specificity.

Since there is no written translation and very poor agreement among secondary sources (Clayton, Pratt, Fuqate, etc.) as to what Joseph Smith said or did then the evidence of fraud is very weak.

As noted above, both the Clayton journal and the History of the Church

claim that Joseph Smith “translated a portion” of the Kinderhook plates and found that they contain the history of “a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt…”

History of the Church is dependent on the Clayton journal and was written much later, so it counts a lot less.

" 'Six plates having the appearance of Brass have lately been dug out of the mound by a gentleman in Pike Co. Illinois. They are small and filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredite back to Ham the son of Noah" (The Ensign, August 1981, page 73)

The reader will notice that Apostle Pratt’s account agrees with

The reader will note that Pratt doesn’t mention a translation and his speculation about what the plates contained was somewhat different then Clayton’s. I just don’t picture the Jaredites being Hamitic or Egyptian.

[snip Clayton, HC, and faulty analysis]

Clayton is known to attribute things and sayings to Joseph Smith in his journal that didn’t quite happen that way. Usually he has to be verified from independent sources. Note how HC turns Clayton’s paraphrase(?) into a direct quote. Back then the church didn’t have professional historians!

I think Joseph may have speculated about the plate’s contents but upon further reflection decided they weren’t worth his time. The story brings to mind the D&C passage about how to translate:

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
Scriptures
9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.
Scriptures
10 Now, if you had known this you could have translated

 

[mormon_fool]

## My name’s Hebrew - but I’m not Jewish or a Hebrew-speaker

The important thing is, that the word was available - even if not in the context and usage in which it appears in the BoM.​

I appreciate you attempting to make sense of “Alma”. I agree that availability is very relevant. Alma was readily available and understood in a feminine sense. Not even those that knew Hebrew would recognize Alma as a masculine term. This usage had to established much later.

The Alma was a battle during the Crimean War - that is no evidence that those who named the place Alma had Hebrew or Latin words in mind. The appearance a word has in English, is not always a safe guide to its true meaning.

English and accessible Hebrew are the proper frame of reference for those who think Joseph Smith was making it up. The Crimean War Alma is a piece of non-evidence. Another continent and after the Book of Mormon, i.e., no direct connection.

So its being a true masculine name in Hebrew, is not a proof of the BoM’s divine origin - the name can be accounted for without being evidence (let alone proof) of the inspiration of the text it occurs in.

I make the same distinction between evidence and proof. I agree masculine Alma can be accounted for without conceding inspiration, however I find all such accounting ad hoc and unpersuasive.

PS: Let’s remember why exactly I brought “Alma” up. I did it to counter oat soda’s claim that Joseph Smith got all his Hebrew names from the Bible. I said the cumulative case has to be considered in response to Jerusha’s amusement about Moron-s.

PS: edit

 

[Jerusha]

White folks!!! Obsessing about the individual leaves on trees instead of seeing the forest.

Gestalt it!!!



Some of those names may have come from Indian languages. Shawnee were in the area, and there was a guy named Black Hoof who talked to white folk too much.