NOM

Hey everyone! New to this forum and didn't find this exact question posted ever before, so sorry if this is a duplicate question (please refer me to the discussion if there is one)...

I have been down the rabbit hole intensely for the last year and a half, and have been through a major faith transition. I still maintain a strong faith in God but my faith and confidence in most LDS doctrine and truth claims outside of the simple gospel of Christ are pretty much gone. Additionally, I see overwhelming evidence that the Book of Mormon is not a translation of an ancient text, given its similarity to a number of contemporaneous 19th century works. Is the Book of Mormon a 100% work of fiction? I don't know, maybe. Are the anachronisms troubling? Oh ya...

But there are some things that keep me form throwing the BofM out the window and leave me scratching my head. For example, a great piece written by Corbin Volluz on RationalFaiths regarding the obscure "Gazelem" reference in Alma 37:23. See here:

https://rationalfaiths.com/a-book-of-mormon-mystery/

Quoting Volluz: "This is a strange coincidence. Making it stranger still are the facts that: (1) The English word gazelle derives from the Arabic word ghazal; (2) The Acts of Peter was unavailable for use by Joseph Smith in producing the Book of Mormon; (3) Gazelem is the only proper name unique to Joseph Smith for a shining stone or seer stone; (4) Gazelem appears only once in all the standard works (or pretty much anywhere else or that matter), and it is used this one time in direct connection with a stone that shines in darkness; and (5) using the word gazelle to describe a stone as bright or shining is rare and seems to be unattested in any sources other than The Acts of Peter and the ancient Sumerian Ninurta Myth Lugal-E... and possibly the Book of Mormon. I don't know what to make of the fact that the Book of Mormon appears to name a shining stone Gazelem."

What do you guys think of this? How the heck did it get in there? Was Joseph (or Joseph and his co-authors) pulling from apocryphal text that we don't know of?

I've come across other obscure things that are in the BofM over the years that make me question the ultimate source and the possible creativity of Joseph and/or Joseph and his co-authors. Would love to hear insights on these "mysteries" if you want to call them such.

Joseph Smith likes the word. It's his secret code word.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazelem

Welcome! Enjoyed reading your post! I really started questioning the BOM on my mission and for me it was the lack of archeology evidence that broke my shelf.

The very fact that it is a “mystery” should be a big red flag. Too often TBMs give the scriptures too much credit when they don’t understand something, but really the scriptures are just poorly written and objectively make no sense. Joseph Smith plagerized alot of stuff, so maybe he just copied it from something, or maybe it’s just a coincidence.

I’m at the point now where the basic belief of a supernatural being (Moroni) giving Joseph Smith the plates shows that the whole thing is fiction. If I hadn’t been born into it, I would dismiss it out of hand as “not true.” Just like I dismiss all the other religions in the world.

But, when my shelf was collapsing I was like you, I had to get into the details and seriously look for archeological evidence and where the indians came from. It was the little things and details that collapsed my shelf that I obsessed over.

ETA: Grammer.

Welcome!

Your story sounds very familiar.

I'm trying to remember a BofM phrase that comes almost verbatim from A View to the Hebrews. Anyway, when I mentioned this phrasing to an apologist on another website, he informed me that the phrase was even closer to Joseph than even I had thought and could be found in Joseph's family Bible which included the Biblical Apocrypha.

Ethan Smith, author of A View to the Hebrews had lifted it from the Apocrypha himself.

My point is that sometimes we think we have all of the possible sources for a phrase or name nailed down and then someone else comes along and shows us another source that we were unaware of.

To say the least the apologist didn't help his own case by telling me another possibility of where the phrase had come from. He only made it worse.

So I would say don't be too quick to close the door on Joseph's ability to come up with stuff from his own available earthly resources.

Having read the blog article, I think Volluz is making this into more than what it really is.

I think, as Joseph is want to do, he has just taken the word "gaze" and played with it to make it seem exotic. Scrying or stone gazing being his forte, it seems like a small leap. The coincidental link with "gazelle" is just that...a coincidence in that gazelles and other deer/antelope have this intent look or stare when observing things around them and their eye is the quality of a beautifully polished stone which would have been much more of a rarity in ancient times. Thus the connection between "gaze" and reflective (or light producing) stone.

I always figured Nephi or Nephite was always a play on Nephilim from Genesis 6:4.

Palerider wrote: ↑Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:45 am I always figured Nephi or Nephite was always a play on Nephilim from Genesis 6:4.

He might have gotten it from John Walker's pronunciation guide (as well as possibly many others):

http://blog.mrm.org/2014/07/john-walker ... mon-names/

That would explain the curious Latin pronunciation Mormons use for names ending in "i".

On the other hand, Nephi was big, so it's a fitting name if it refers to the Nephilim.

Reuben wrote: ↑Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:52 pm

Palerider wrote: ↑Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:45 am I always figured Nephi or Nephite was always a play on Nephilim from Genesis 6:4.

He might have gotten it from John Walker's pronunciation guide (as well as possibly many others):

http://blog.mrm.org/2014/07/john-walker ... mon-names/

That would explain the curious Latin pronunciation Mormons use for names ending in "i".

On the other hand, Nephi was big, so it's a fitting name if it refers to the Nephilim.

Thanks for sharing that Reuben. I've seen this website before awhile back but had forgotten about it. Something new to study!

Reuben wrote: ↑Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:52 pm That would explain the curious Latin pronunciation Mormons use for names ending in "i".

Just like in the famous primary song:

I knew a girl named Boney Moroni
She's as skinny as a stick of macaroni.

Thank you for your replies everyone. Glad that I have more things that I can look into.

On another note, I've wondered about the legitimacy of the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price, and specifically, the critical viewpoints on it. I may not have looked hard enough, but I don't really remember seeing a critical review of the BofMoses. Given that it purportedly came about as a result of the JST of the Bible, which we now know bears a striking resemblance (to put it kindly) to Clarke's commentary.

I'm really interested in the validity of Nibley's acclaims of the BofMoses, as he and other apologists connect many aspects of the BofMoses with a number of apocryphal texts. Thoughts? Are these guys just performing fantastic mental gymnastics or may there be some real meat there (i.e., another head scratcher)?

ap1054 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:44 pm On another note, I've wondered about the legitimacy of the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price, and specifically, the critical viewpoints on it. I may not have looked hard enough, but I don't really remember seeing a critical review of the BofMoses.

The Book of Moses has the narrative of the "God Who Weeps" and is quite touching as a result. Unfortunately, It refuses to fit within any recorded ancient history since it does end with:

Moses 8:30 wrote:And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will destroy all flesh from off the earth.

The Book of Moses depends on the Flood story as severely as does the Book of Mormon. A suitable flood story does not fit in any human time line from 4500 BC onward since writings from the Sumerians (4500 –  2000 BC), Minoans (2600 - 1100 BC), Egyptian Early Dynastic Kingdom (3150 BC – c. 2686 BC), and the Peruvian Chico Norte (3500 - 1800 BC) all fail to mention a world wide flood.

Meanwhile, the text of the Book of Abraham has the silliest story of the founding of Egypt in Abraham 1:23-27. It manages the hat trick of being ahistorical, anachronistic, and racist all in just a few verses.

The biggest problem I have with the Book of Moses is the New Testament language in it. Example:

7 And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.

8 Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore.

9 And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will.

Most Mormons, who proof text the hell out of everything in the Old Testament don't blink an eye at something like this, but it's a huge red flag for me. People in Moses' time just wouldn't have been talking like this.

Palerider wrote: ↑Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:45 am Having read the blog article, I think Volluz is making this into more than what it really is.

I won't out him, but maybe Brother Volluz will drop by in his NOM disguise and shed some light on what he thinks about this nowadays.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:58 pm

Palerider wrote: ↑Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:45 am Having read the blog article, I think Volluz is making this into more than what it really is.

I won't out him, but maybe Brother Volluz will drop by in his NOM disguise and shed some light on what he thinks about this nowadays.

I don't know what Brother Volluz would say, but I did read that same blog and think it is an extraordinary coincidence, if that is all it is.

I think Brother Volluz also wrote something about the presence of ancient Hebrew numerology in the Book of Mormon, which he has been known to say in an off-hand manner may be the Holy Grail of Book of Mormon apologetics.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/vie ... text=byusq


And personally, I believe the strongest (and most coincidental!) connections between ancient tests and scripture produced by Joseph Smith is the surprising number and specificity of links between the Book of Enoch Joseph gives us in the Book of Moses (chapters 5-7?) and the Enochic literature in 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch, and the DSS Enoch fragments; none of which was even theoretically available to Joseph with the exception of 1 Enoch, and the evidence for Joseph's possession of even 1 Enoch is scant, to my knowledge.

Is the Book of Mormon an obvious production of early 19th century America? Yes.

But does the Book of Mormon nevertheless have unexpected connections with the ancient world? It appears so.

consiglieri wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:49 pm But does the Book of Mormon nevertheless have unexpected connections with the ancient world? It appears so.

Just mentioning the birth of baby Jesus in Jerusalem shows its connection to the ancient world.

BTW, it that Brother Volluz a genius or what?

Reuben wrote: ↑Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:52 pm He might have gotten it from John Walker's pronunciation guide (as well as possibly many others):

Here is the pertinent line from Rick Grunder http://www.rickgrunder.com/parallels/mp453.pdf

Gaz ́ zam (cf. Gazelem)

ap1054 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:21 pm
But there are some things that keep me form throwing the BofM out the window and leave me scratching my head. For example, a great piece written by Corbin Volluz on RationalFaiths regarding the obscure "Gazelem" reference in Alma 37:23. See here:

https://rationalfaiths.com/a-book-of-mormon-mystery/

Quoting Volluz: "This is a strange coincidence. Making it stranger still are the facts that: (1) The English word gazelle derives from the Arabic word ghazal; (2) The Acts of Peter was unavailable for use by Joseph Smith in producing the Book of Mormon; (3) Gazelem is the only proper name unique to Joseph Smith for a shining stone or seer stone; (4) Gazelem appears only once in all the standard works (or pretty much anywhere else or that matter), and it is used this one time in direct connection with a stone that shines in darkness; and (5) using the word gazelle to describe a stone as bright or shining is rare and seems to be unattested in any sources other than The Acts of Peter and the ancient Sumerian Ninurta Myth Lugal-E... and possibly the Book of Mormon. I don't know what to make of the fact that the Book of Mormon appears to name a shining stone Gazelem."

What do you guys think of this? How the heck did it get in there? Was Joseph (or Joseph and his co-authors) pulling from apocryphal text that we don't know of?

I've come across other obscure things that are in the BofM over the years that make me question the ultimate source and the possible creativity of Joseph and/or Joseph and his co-authors. Would love to hear insights on these "mysteries" if you want to call them such.

I think Gazelem might have more to do with the occult. Check out his podcast:
https://www.yearofpolygamy.com/year-of- ... mormonism/

ap1054 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:21 pm Hey everyone! New to this forum and didn't find this exact question posted ever before, so sorry if this is a duplicate question (please refer me to the discussion if there is one)...

I have been down the rabbit hole intensely for the last year and a half, and have been through a major faith transition. I still maintain a strong faith in God but my faith and confidence in most LDS doctrine and truth claims outside of the simple gospel of Christ are pretty much gone. Additionally, I see overwhelming evidence that the Book of Mormon is not a translation of an ancient text, given its similarity to a number of contemporaneous 19th century works. Is the Book of Mormon a 100% work of fiction? I don't know, maybe. Are the anachronisms troubling? Oh ya...

But there are some things that keep me form throwing the BofM out the window and leave me scratching my head. For example, a great piece written by Corbin Volluz on RationalFaiths regarding the obscure "Gazelem" reference in Alma 37:23. See here:

https://rationalfaiths.com/a-book-of-mormon-mystery/

Quoting Volluz: "This is a strange coincidence. Making it stranger still are the facts that: (1) The English word gazelle derives from the Arabic word ghazal; (2) The Acts of Peter was unavailable for use by Joseph Smith in producing the Book of Mormon; (3) Gazelem is the only proper name unique to Joseph Smith for a shining stone or seer stone; (4) Gazelem appears only once in all the standard works (or pretty much anywhere else or that matter), and it is used this one time in direct connection with a stone that shines in darkness; and (5) using the word gazelle to describe a stone as bright or shining is rare and seems to be unattested in any sources other than The Acts of Peter and the ancient Sumerian Ninurta Myth Lugal-E... and possibly the Book of Mormon. I don't know what to make of the fact that the Book of Mormon appears to name a shining stone Gazelem."

What do you guys think of this? How the heck did it get in there? Was Joseph (or Joseph and his co-authors) pulling from apocryphal text that we don't know of?

I've come across other obscure things that are in the BofM over the years that make me question the ultimate source and the possible creativity of Joseph and/or Joseph and his co-authors. Would love to hear insights on these "mysteries" if you want to call them such.

I haven't read all the posts above in this thread, but I do have a theory on this top question. In D. Michael Quinn's book about magic, it was known that Hyrum had parchments that had magic symbols and seals on them. It was witchcraft stuff. The whole Smith family was immersed in it, especially the older men. There are records of treasure digging, drawing magic circles, using astrology, etc. that permeated the life of JS.

Its interesting that scholars seem to always stack the deck when they try to understand things. They look at sources like the Bible, or the works of Peter, etc. Those things perhaps have examples of using the word. But WHAT ABOUT THE WITCHCRAFT BOOKS THAT THESE EARLY SMITH PEOPLE HAD!????

Why hasn't anyone looked for the source word in THOSE BOOKS!????????

Its correlated history seeking! Instead of looking at ALL the possible facts and piecing things together, there is the presupposition that ONLY things like the Bible or Act of Peter are acceptable as ways to prove/disprove the BofM and words like Gazalem.

While in Australia on my mission, I tracted into an ex-occultist. He went into his room and came back with a book on witchcraft that astonished me. It was called "Goetia, the lesser key of Solomon". Look it up. That right...go out there and Google it.....see what it is for yourself.

When I looked through the pages of that, I saw page after page of magic seal symbols, demon grades etc.

Now, imagine my surprise when I am thumbing through the book written by Quinn, where he showed some of the pictures associated with the parchments in Hyrum's possession!. The hair on the back of my neck went RIGHT UP FAST! Those pictures were the same type as that Goetia witchcraft book!

So what is it with these scholars? Does the word Gazallem appear in ANY esoteric material back then? Hummm.....a shining stone that glows in the dark, almost with magical powers?.....well, I wonder.

You can't tell me that a man who would slit the throat of a goat and bleed it, then use his magic stone THAT SHOWN IN HIS HAT to find treasure, only to claim that the guardian spirit THAT THEY TRIED TO "BIND" wisked it away, wasn't influenced by some type of teaching or book that maybe he had access to.

Remember the phrase "I the Lord and bound when ye do what I say?" Half of the spells out there are about binding the spirits. Ever read the phrase "Holiness to the Lord"? Shucks...that is one of the magic phrases used in spell circles as a binding protection. The parallels creep me out!

And yet, with those vary parchments as prized possessions of Hyrum, a Jupiter Talisman as a prized possession of Joseph, and the uncanny link between ceremonies and days of special times in LDS history and correlations with astrological high days....shucks. Its all hog wash. It was just a total coincidend that Hyrum had those. And that Joseph wore a magic...oops. Sorry,...a meaningless necklace...its just coincidence.

I think there are more sources of some of the uncanny things in the Book of Mormon. And its my opinion that historians have stacked the deck and discounted those things in their work.

MoPag wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 6:21 pm

ap1054 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:21 pm
But there are some things that keep me form throwing the BofM out the window and leave me scratching my head. For example, a great piece written by Corbin Volluz on RationalFaiths regarding the obscure "Gazelem" reference in Alma 37:23. See here:

https://rationalfaiths.com/a-book-of-mormon-mystery/

Quoting Volluz: "This is a strange coincidence. Making it stranger still are the facts that: (1) The English word gazelle derives from the Arabic word ghazal; (2) The Acts of Peter was unavailable for use by Joseph Smith in producing the Book of Mormon; (3) Gazelem is the only proper name unique to Joseph Smith for a shining stone or seer stone; (4) Gazelem appears only once in all the standard works (or pretty much anywhere else or that matter), and it is used this one time in direct connection with a stone that shines in darkness; and (5) using the word gazelle to describe a stone as bright or shining is rare and seems to be unattested in any sources other than The Acts of Peter and the ancient Sumerian Ninurta Myth Lugal-E... and possibly the Book of Mormon. I don't know what to make of the fact that the Book of Mormon appears to name a shining stone Gazelem."

What do you guys think of this? How the heck did it get in there? Was Joseph (or Joseph and his co-authors) pulling from apocryphal text that we don't know of?

I've come across other obscure things that are in the BofM over the years that make me question the ultimate source and the possible creativity of Joseph and/or Joseph and his co-authors. Would love to hear insights on these "mysteries" if you want to call them such.

I think Gazelem might have more to do with the occult. Check out his podcast:
https://www.yearofpolygamy.com/year-of- ... mormonism/

MoPag....mate, I finished my post and just glanced above and saw yours. WOW.

We are thinking exactly alike.

PS. The pentagram on your avatar is priceless in context!

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:53 pm
MoPag....mate, I finished my post and just glanced above and saw yours. WOW.

We are thinking exactly alike.

PS. The pentagram on your avatar is priceless in context!

I think we might have just pushed ap1054 down a rabbit hole he didn't even know was there. Hang in there ap1054!

Meanwhile, the text of the Book of Abraham has the silliest story of the founding of Egypt in Abraham 1:23-27. It manages the hat trick of being ahistorical, anachronistic, and racist all in just a few verses.

My ward thinks egypt got all their advanced knowledge from abraham. That was a new one for me.