This book is loaded with information that probably none of the commentators on this thread are aware of. I remember that someone had mocked the frequent use of "and it came to pass" in the Book of Mormon. On page 132 of this book is this 1986 notice:
Mayan Glyphs Translated "It Came To Pass"
Two reports of Mayan glyphs translated to read "...it came to pass..." have come to our attention. The first report is from the 1985 Mayan Hieroglyphic Workshop at the University of Texas conducted by Linda Schele, a leading glyph expert. The workbook from the workshop lists several combinations of "it came to pass." The second report, in the March issue of Science 86 magazine ("The Lost Language of Coba" by Virginia Morell, p. 48), shows the drawing of a glyph on a Palenque tablet that David Stuart has translated to mean "it came to pass."
Besides this archaeological evidence, there has always existed a common sense explanation. "It came to pass" is not used when every detail in a narrative is being described. It is used to indicate a passage of time. The Book of Mormon summarizes a long and complex history, resulting in many narrative gaps that are indicated by "it came to pass".
Actually the interpretation is “to happen, or to come to pass”. Glyphs convey CONCEPTS not actual PHRASES. Does Dr Stuart come to the same conclusion - that this show that the bom is true? Hate to break this development to you John, but from his articles and blogs I've read the answer appears to be no. Particularly his webblog where if you search the word "mormon" you receive this answer -
NOT FOUND
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn’t here.
The archaeological community does not recognize the bom story to have any relevance to mayan or any central american culture. It is called selectively mining cultures for parallels to mormonism - while completely ignoring the preponderance of evidence that those same cultures in no manner are those described in the bom.
Take time to read some of Dr. Stuart's papers - many are available on line. He notes a great deal of history being interpreted with a complete absence of linkage to anything resembling the bom - and with good reason - nothing does! Does the bom detail bloodletting rituals? Other details of Mayan worship are completely foreign to the bom and the Jewish worship practices that it claims occurred here.
A culture with writing will inevitably use it to document its HISTORY in some fashion. It is impossible to do so without some symbol meaning “and then this happened.” How many other glyphs are there John and do any of them relate anything more directly associated with the bom - say the names of the cities, bom characters, etc. This is simply the mormon equivalent of blindfolding a man, giving him thousands of darts to hit a dart board some where in the room, and if he does, the mormon apologists swoon over how he was able to accomplish that being blindfolded - ignoring the thousands of misses.
I remember that someone had mocked the frequent use of "and it came to pass" in the Book of Mormon. On page 132 of this book is this 1986 notice: Mayan Glyphs Translated "It Came To Pass" Two reports of Mayan glyphs translated to read "...it came to pass..." have come to our attention. The first report is from the 1985 Mayan Hieroglyphic Workshop at the University of Texas conducted by Linda Schele, a leading glyph expert. The workbook from the workshop lists several combinations of "it came to pass."
#1: Bible usage of “it came to pass” is WYHY in Hebrew & commonly found in a lot of books, especially 11 of OT books. But that’s not an out-of-the-ordinary phrase. Something that’s so simple that it means “it came to be” or “it came to pass” will indeed be common usage across cultures & languages. (“HY” in Hebrew = “to be” or “will be”). IOW, “it came to pass” is just another way of saying, “it happened” or “it occurred.”
Believe me, cultures are going to write about what “happened” – including the Mayan culture.
So, other than the mere repetition, I don’t make a big “apologetic” deal about “it came to pass.” This phrase, at least as interpreted by the KJV Bible publishers, was used a lot by Luke, too, in the NT (Luke & Acts). But that doesn’t reinforce Smith’s usage any more than your Mayan claim.
What’s funny is that Mormon apologists like to treat this passage as “ho hum” – we’re not bothered by it, even if Mark Twain was. But in reality, Joseph Smith, 1837, was bothered by the amount this phrase was used. How do we know that?
’Cause Smith took an “editing” pen to the Book of Mormon in 1837 and “axed” at least 47 of its usages? Tell us why, John, your boy “prophet” would edit a “translation” given to him by the power of God – supposedly what he called the “most perfect book”?
Doesn’t that render the book as “suspect?”
Tell us why, too, John, that Smith used this phrase in the BoM at times where ”in some cases, nothing new had ‘come to pass’?” Don’t take my word…Here’s what Royal Skousen @ BYU’s Maxwell Institute said:
Finally, the original text of the Book of Mormon contains expressions which seem inappropriate or improper in some of their uses. For example, in the original text a good many occurrences of the phrase "and it came to pass" are found in inappropriate contexts. In his editing for the 1837 edition, Joseph Smith removed at least 47 of these apparently extraneous uses of this well-worked phrase. In most cases, there were two or more examples of "it came to pass" in close proximity; in some cases, nothing new had "come to pass." (Royal Skousen, “The Original Language of the Book of Mormon: Upstate New York Dialect, King James English, or Hebrew?” found at: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=3&num=1&id=46 )
The one other wonderment I might have, John, is why ”it came to pass” was included three times in Smith’s 1832 diary, including when he was writing about his “vision”? (see “An American Prophet’s Record, pp. 6, 7, 8). [I mean, Smith’s mind wasn’t operating in Mayan glyphs or “Reformed Egyptian,” then, was he?]
I think, John, you & other BoM apologists would make more inroads if you found Mayan glyphs that used “Smithisms” other than a phrase meaning “it happened” or “it came to be.” (IOW, this is not a unique phrase, whereas, Smith does have unique phrases in his works).
What phrases am I referencing? Well, a very interesting article appeared in the May 2010 issue of the Salt Lake City Messenger. No author was listed (sounds like it was a "team" effort) - entitled, "Smithisms in the Book of Mormon." (pp. 14-17).
It listed a number of these: I’ll start with phrases he uses in his diary:
* Smith liked the phrase “exceeding great” and “exceedingly great”. He used it in his 1832 diary entry found at “An American Prophet’s Record”, p. 5. The reason this is called a “Smithism” – and not a “Godism” – is because we all have pet phrases. And Smith’s “pet phrases” show through when you study them. So as I said, that was one of them…and that being the case, we’d expect it to show through in the D&C & it a number of BoM books…I mean, what are the chances all these supposed different BoM “authors” are going to use this exact phrase? And why does this phrase then also conspicuously show up three times in the D&C? [See D&C 108:3; 109:23; 127:10 Moroni 10:11 Ether 11:4; Mosiah 4:11; 1 Neiphi 8:12, 23]
* Again, looking through the filter of Smith’s 1832 diary, we see he liked the phrase, ”Immortal soul” (An American Prophet’s Record, p. 4). Now it “just so happened that it came to pass” that “immortal soul” pops up in Mosiah 2:38; Hel. 3:30.
* And even more phrase that just pops out at you as a Smithism is “or in other words”. We see Smith liked this phrase, using it in his 1835 diary (“An American Prophet’s record, p. 51) and also in his 1838 Liberty jail letter.
Now what makes this a telltale sign of a Smithism is that it readily shows up even in Smith’s revision of the Bible…see for example the JST -- Mark 9:3; Luke 17:37; Lk 6:29. It appeared around the same time he was doing the JST as it showed up in the D&C (95: 17; 61:23 10:17). And then, of course, it appeared five times in the BoM: 3 Nephi 6:20; Alma 32:16; Mos. 7:27; 1 Nephi 10:4; 8:2 plus even by Smith in the Preface to BoM!!!!
This phrase alone shows that Smith’s signature is all over everything he pretended to be “revelations” from God occurring over a period of 2500 years!
Other unique “Smithisms”:
* “Would that you should”: Found in
D&C 46:7
Alma 38:5
Mosiah 1:3
Omni 1:2
[I mean, come on, John, you’re in a conversation with Elohim, creator of the universe. And he’s going to consistently talk to you in phrase like, “or in other words” (as if He doesn’t know which best words to choose?) and “would that you should” and “it must needs be”?]
* “it must needs be” Found in
D&C 48:3
1 Nephi 15:33
Alma 32:28
3 Nephi 5:1
* “dwindled in unbelief” Found in
D&C 3:18
Ether 4:3;
Hel. 15:11
2 Nephi 26:15
* “expedient that” Found in
D&C 9:3
Mos. 13:27
Alma 34:9
2 Nephi 9:15
* “save it were” Found in
D&C 18:35
4 Nephi 1:5
Hel. 3:23
2 Nephi 11:1
Again, the source: Salt Lake City Messenger, May 2010, "Smithisms in the Book of Mormon." (pp. 14-17).