Talk:View of the Hebrews
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Addition of references
Thx for the references :) --Trödel 20:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome. You helped improve the article.--John Foxe 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Categorization of "View of the Hebrews"
There seems to be some attempt here to categorize "View of the Hebrews" as an anti-Mormon work. It cannot be categorized in this manner since it was published prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon. Although it is referenced by church critics, there is nothing anti-Mormon about the book itself. In fact, Brigham Young University's Religious Studies Center republished the book in 1999 in order to make it more accessible to those who wish to evaluate these claims for themselves. In addition to listing the B.H. Roberts info regarding parallels, it would be good to list some of the points which are significantly different between the two books (e.g. Ethan Smith's assumption that Quetzocoatal was Moses, whereas the Book of Mormon describes the visit of Jesus Christ).Bochica 15:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] One possible source for the BoM
The following sentence is incorrect: "Numerous commentators on Mormon doctrine, from LDS Church Authority B. H. Roberts to Joseph Smith biographer Fawn M. Brodie have since considered View of the Hebrews as one possible source for the Book of Mormon..." Nowhere in Robert's work did he express the opinion that it was "one source for the Book of Mormon." What he did do was list parallels which could be used by critics to imply that VotH was the source for the BoM. Writing the sentence in this manner supports a particular POV with the implication that Roberts "lost his testimony" of the Book of Mormon (a different and very debatable topic as well). My suggestion would be to simply rewrite the sentence as "Numerous commentators on Mormon doctrine have considered View of the Hebrews as one possible source for the Book of Mormon," which is a fact and achieves NPOV. Bochica 00:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've added the citation to Roberts, who was indeed disheartened by the similarities between the books. There's nothing said here about Robert's losing his testimony. But Roberts thought that the Smiths had read or at least knew of the book and that it provided basic structural framework on which the BoM hangs.--John Foxe 15:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- The citation is Grant Palmer's reiteration of the theme I mentioned above. What I'm looking for is an original source statement from B.H. Roberts - one in which Roberts himself makes this claim. The sentence as it is currently constructed does not convey fact, but instead presents Palmer's speculation regarding Roberts as fact. The same is true for the last statement that you made in your comment. I'd like an original source with Roberts' words in which he himself states that he believed "that it provided basic structural framework on which the the BoM hangs." Roberts presented this scenario to church authorities as a possible means by which attacks against the book could be made at a later time, but the statements made here clearly imply that these statements reflected his personal beliefs. Bochica 16:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's a circumstantial case for sure, but none the less real for all that. Roberts says, "It has been pointed out in these pages that there are many things in the former book that might well have suggested many major things in the other. Not a few things merely, one or two, or half dozen, but many; and it is this fact of many things of similarity and the cumulative force of them that makes them so serious a menace to Joseph Smith's story of the Book of Mormon's origin." (240). Then Roberts goes on to emphasize Smith's creative power at storytelling.
- As an example of Robert's power to unsettle the equanimity of the faithful, here's part of a review of VotH from Amazon.com: "As a life-long multigenerational practicing Mormon, I found this book extremely disturbing....Roberts suggests 18 parallels between the Book of Mormon and the View of the Hebrews. He did not complete his work and I think that at least another 20 to 40 parallels could be found. (I don't buy all of Roberts parallels). Much odd Mormon religious vocabulary is in this book and it frankly sounds like numerous sermons I have heard, especially from the High Council. The name Latter-Day Saints is suggested in the View of the Hebrews along with dozens of such haunting terms as washing and annointings, or avenging of blood. Whether this book along with the Bible and the sermons of the day provided a conceptual outline for the creative religious genius (who could quote 14 chapters of Isaiah from memory) Joseph Smith to write the Book of Mormon or not will not be proven one way or the other. But for those looking for evidence of this sort, View of the Hebrews provides some disturbing thought. I found actually reading the original text of this book and asking myself a twist of that old missionary question, could Joseph Smith have used this as a template? to be most unsettling."--John Foxe 17:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- The citation is Grant Palmer's reiteration of the theme I mentioned above. What I'm looking for is an original source statement from B.H. Roberts - one in which Roberts himself makes this claim. The sentence as it is currently constructed does not convey fact, but instead presents Palmer's speculation regarding Roberts as fact. The same is true for the last statement that you made in your comment. I'd like an original source with Roberts' words in which he himself states that he believed "that it provided basic structural framework on which the the BoM hangs." Roberts presented this scenario to church authorities as a possible means by which attacks against the book could be made at a later time, but the statements made here clearly imply that these statements reflected his personal beliefs. Bochica 16:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Somethings don't make sense in the writings. It could be that it just needs clarification. (1) 1821 to 1826 while he was writing View of the Hebrews (2) The first edition of Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews was published in 1823, and a second expanded edition appeared in 1825.
These dates don't match up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.78.242 (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scriptural citation
I've probably used the wrong tag here to mark this, but the reference to 2 Esdras 13:14 is not correct. The KJV (which I'm assuming was the bible version a Congregationalist in 19th century New England would be using) of this verse reads:
Thou hast shewed thy servant these wonders from the beginning, and hast counted me worthy that thou shouldest receive my prayer:
I'll look around; see if I can find the right verse. Perhaps it's a simple typo and some of the numbers got reversed or something. Snocrates 22:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks to Visorstuff for correcting that. Snocrates 22:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
