Book Of Mormon: New Evidence Of 19Th Century Origin

[wenglund]

Okay, here are the first 10 verse of both books posted side-by-side. Would cognaitiveharmony and Sethbag and John and Canard78 and Grimace or anyone else please begin pointing out the dumbfounding and uncanny and striking similarities in writing styles, phrasing, concepts, subjects, content, language, themes, and parallels. Please help me see that the Book of Mormon was as if it were a song that had already been written in the book, Late War.

 

 

Once the dumbfounding similarities have been pointed out for these 10 verses, I will post the next 10 verses.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 23, 2013 by wenglund

[pmccombs1]

However, it is amazing that Joseph could do all this with his head in a hat. Truly amazing. I don't think that such a feat will ever be copied. How did he do it? Plus, we have the 11 people who actually saw the plates and 8 people handling them. So, not only do we have a hat trick, we also have a plates trick with signed testimonies. And so, something is not right here.

 

I think this exchange illustrates the potential impact of The Late War. It diminishes the plausibility structures built up by textual scholarship by presenting an "uninspired" text with similar textual qualities and from the same time period. If the measurable qualities of the "inspired" text, which can be subjected to deterministic analysis, can be found in similar measure in a related "uninspired" text, this removes the former analysis as a potent source of apologetic support for the claim of inspiration.

 

Thus, apologia retreats into the realm of the anecdotal... as demonstrated.

 

I believe that is the material point.

[Calm]

If the measurable qualities of the "inspired" text, which can be subjected to deterministic analysis, can be found in similar measure in a related "uninspired" text, this removes the former analysis as a potent source of apologetic support for the claim of inspiration.

And has this been done?

Honest question...has there been any demonstration that either canadaduane's work has shown statistical significance or that Grunder's work has been subjected to any type of statistical analysis?

[maklelan]

This is what I have posted elsewhere on the issue of The Late War:

 

There are many striking similarities between the prose and vernacular of TLW and the Book of Mormon, both in language drawn directly from, and language patterned after, the KJV. The statistical studies found in the website hosting the research show that there is a greater degree of non-KJV lexical correspondence between TLW and the Book of Mormon than between the Book of Mormon and any other book (besides the D&C and PGP).

Having said that, it makes no sense to me to suggest that Joseph Smith had this book open before him while rendering the Book of Mormon, or that he drew words and phrases directly from it. The points of contact are far too discreet and atomistic. As an example, the correspondence of the words "gold and silver," "all manner of," "for food," and "elephants" in Ether 9:17–19 to a segment of TLW (in the same order) is interesting but meaningless unless you can come up with some description of the process by which Smith extracted these discreet words and phrases from one set of sense units scattered around one literary context and imported them into completely different sense units in a completely different literary context. I can conceive of no scenario that makes sense of that. 

The most ludicrous of interpretations of this relationship is the notion that this book is a source for the Book of Mormon narrative (a la Manuscript Found). The narratives are completely unrelated, and the prominence of war themes in both books does not in and of itself indicate a genetic relationship of any kind.

What I think this book can show us is the KJV-influenced vernacular that had currency during Smith's day. A lot of the terminology shared by both books can be found in other publications from the same time period, although this book appears to have the highest concentration of non-KJV linguistic overlap. The Late War very well may have been read by Smith and/or Cowdery growing up (it became marketed as a textbook for children), or even around the time of the rendering of the Book of Mormon. They may have even made a conscious decision to pattern the flavor of the Book of Mormon language after this book. At this point, however, I don't see the relationship being much deeper than that. 

What are the implications of this conclusion? It means, in my opinion, that the theory that the Book of Mormon was revealed letter-by-letter to Joseph Smith is significantly undermined, unless, of course, one wants to assert a very, very tight brand of accommodationism (God so adapted the language of his revelation to Smith's own culture, worldview, and personal lenses that he exactly mimicked the very kinds of phraseology he would have come up with). That begs the question in my opinion. 

For those who hold to what has been termed a "loose translation theory," it is simply another source––perhaps the most prominent––of influence on Smith's linguistic profile. This has long been my position, and I think this publication adds to the strength of it.

[pmccombs1]

And has this been done?

Honest question...has there been any demonstration that either canadaduane's work has shown statistical significance or that Grunder's work has been subjected to any type of statistical analysis?

 

I'm not qualified to assess this, but I suspect at this point that there is still some work to do. Grunder made an intriguing foray into the territory which went unnoticed for a long time, and new interest has been ignited by this recent algorithm that seems to indicate the presence of something potentially significant. 

 

The question is whether or not the same sort of analysis that has been applied to the BoM by faithful scholars, regarding (for example) chiasmus, Hebraisms, and so forth, could also be applied to the Hunt work and produce a result that could be used by a rhetorical "apologist" wishing to make similar claims about The Late War. That is to say, could such a person theoretically point to the existence of chiasms and Hebraisms in The Late War, and present these as evidence for the ancient origin of that work? Because if so, then we could safely say that the presence of such devices in a 19th century American text would not actually be reliable indicators of ancient origin due to the fact that The Late War is known to be of modern origin. 

 

Grunder, and the recent computer results, have provided several hints, at the very least, that this in-depth analysis could be done with the result that chiasmus and Hebraisms (etc.) would be eliminated from the repertoire of serious apologetic defenses for the BoM. In other words, it could no longer be said, to great effect, that the presence of chiasmus and Hebraisms in the BoM support a claim of ancient origin, for the reason that another man wrote a book "in the ancient style" which also happened to reproduce these same characteristics.

 

I don't think we are going to find a whole lot of convincing parallels in terms of specific themes, although I do think some general themes are clearly present. However, these would be difficult to use as proof-text in an attempt to demonstrate source and derivative. I'm not convinced by Grunder's parallel themes, anyway. I think The Late War is more likely to demonstrate how people in that American context perceived and reproduced "ancient" language in their own time. And I think it is going to show Joseph Smith as archetypal of that.

[Glenn101]

Hypothetically, if the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work, then it's interesting to think about why the Lord is portrayed here as explaining to the Brother of Jared that windows won't work in the vessels, since the Brother of Jared would likely never have heard of (glass) windows in 2200 BC. If The Late War is a text which heavily influences the wording, style, themes, and content of the Book of Mormon, then the passage in Ether could almost be seen as a response to the ship-building technology of the early 19th century.

 

Again, in this hypothetical world, if Joseph read this passage from The Late War, he could have read that ships have windows, but if it didn't fit the narrative he'd intended then he could have used the character of the Lord to specify that windows would be forbidden.

 

I am pretty sure that Joseph knew that ships have windows. However, the Book of Ether does not mention glass as the material used for windows. The material is not mentioned.

 

Glenn

[Calm]

The most ludicrous of interpretations of this relationship is the notion that this book is a source for the Book of Mormon narrative (a la Manuscript Found). The narratives are completely unrelated, and the prominence of war themes in both books does not in and of itself indicate a genetic relationship of any kind.

So you don't see the relation of contents and themes others are suggesting (if I understand you correctly)? If not, perhaps you could expound on the examples given of such if you have time?

[maklelan]

So you don't see the relation of contents and themes others are suggesting (if I understand you correctly)? If not, perhaps you could expound on the examples given of such if you have time?

 

I have yet to see any correlation that extends beyond discreet words and phrases, or the collocation of a couple matching words or phrases within a few words or sentences from each other. Nothing points to a larger narrative relationship. The fact that Alma shares a particularly strong relationship is no surprise, given TLW is all about war, and Alma has the numerous "war chapters." Of course the vernacular is going to be particularly similar. 

[cognitiveharmony]

Okay, here are the first 10 verse of both books posted side-by-side. Would cognaitiveharmony and Sethbag and John and Canard78 and Grimace or anyone else please begin pointing out the dumbfounding and uncanny and striking similarities in writing styles, phrasing, concepts, subjects, content, language, themes, and parallels. Please help me see that the Book of Mormon was as if it were a song that had already been written in the book, Late War.

 

 

Once the dumbfounding similarities have been pointed out for these 10 verses, I will post the next 10 verses.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund

Wade, you probably won't find any correlations based on verse number....or placement of verses in the text. Nobody is saying that JS was an idiot. Nobody is saying that he copied this text closely. We're just saying that it reads very similarly in a variety of ways including phraseology, style, and theme and may very well have had a significant influence on the BoM. At the very least it demonstrates that this style and manner of writing was very likely to have been an influence and makes any tight translation theories unlikely. If your mind can't correlate beyond verse number and placement, that's fine, I suspect there are many others out there like you and this text will be as insignificant to them as it is to you. I would advise that you read what Rick Grunder has written concerning this. It will help you understand the correlations between these two texts.

[cognitiveharmony]

I have yet to see any correlation that extends beyond discreet words and phrases, or the collocation of a couple matching words or phrases within a few words or sentences from each other. Nothing points to a larger narrative relationship. The fact that Alma shares a particularly strong relationship is no surprise, given TLW is all about war, and Alma has the numerous "war chapters." Of course the vernacular is going to be particularly similar. 

 

A poster on another board pointed this out. Compare Alma 49:20-25 with LW Chapter XXIX verses 20-23.

[The Grimace]

Okay, here are the first 10 verse of both books posted side-by-side. Would cognaitiveharmony and Sethbag and John and Canard78 and Grimace or anyone else please begin pointing out the dumbfounding and uncanny and striking similarities in writing styles, phrasing, concepts, subjects, content, language, themes, and parallels. Please help me see that the Book of Mormon was as if it were a song that had already been written in the book, Late War...

 

Once the dumbfounding similarities have been pointed out for these 10 verses, I will post the next 10 verses.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Nobody claimed there was a verse-to-verse correspondence between the two books, Wade. And nobody is claiming that Joseph Smith had the Late War at his side when he wrote The Book of Mormon.

 

The claim is that Joseph's writing was influenced by the book. And, if you look at this thread, and other threads that are on other boards on the internet, example after example after example shows that concepts appear in both books that transcend the coincidental.

 

Personally, Wade, I think you are being deliberately difficult in an attempt to obfuscate the issue and ridicule the participants in this conversation, and I can't figure out why. You come across as a thoughtful guy, so it puzzles me why you can't engage this issue with the same thoughtfulness that you've exhibited while engaging past issues.

[Calm]

We're just saying that it reads very similarly in a variety of ways including....style, and theme.... I would advise that you read what Rick Grunder has written concerning this. It will help you understand the correlations between these two texts.

So Grunder has examples of "style and theme"?  Just checking before I put time into reading his stuff as I should be doing some 'office' work right now instead of distracting myself with this topic.

[Vookman]

I absolutely believe the Book of Mormon is an ancient document, even if Joseph Smith was influenced by the things he learned in life to express himself:

 

Doctrine and Covenants 1:24

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

[maklelan]

 

 

A poster on another board pointed this out. Compare Alma 49:20-25 with LW Chapter XXIX verses 20-23.

 

I was hoping for some better examples. Let's take a look at what they've suggested:

 

Alma 49:20–25 (no verse divisions):

 

20 Thus they were prepared, yea, a body of their strongest men, with their swords and their slings, to smite down all who should attempt to come into their place of security by the place of entrance; and thus were they prepared to defend themselves against the Lamanites. And it came to pass that the captains of the Lamanites brought up their armies before the place of entrance, and began to contend with the Nephites, to get into their place of security; but behold, they were driven back from time to time, insomuch that they were slain with an immense slaughter. Now when they found that they could not obtain power over the Nephites by the pass, they began to dig down their banks of earth that they might obtain a pass to their armies, that they might have an equal chance to fight; but behold, in these attempts they were swept off by the stones and arrows which were thrown at them; and instead of filling up their ditches by pulling down the banks of earth, they were filled up in a measure with their dead and wounded bodies. Thus the Nephites had all power over their enemies; and thus the Lamanites did attempt to destroy the Nephites until their chief captains were all slain; yea, and more than a thousand of the Lamanites were slain; while, on the other hand, there was not a single soul of the Nephites which was slain. There were about fifty who were wounded, who had been exposed to the arrows of the Lamanites through the pass, but they were shielded by their shields, and their breastplates, and their head-plates, insomuch that their wounds were upon their legs, many of which were very severe. And it came to pass, that when the Lamanites saw that their chief captains were all slain they fled into the wilderness. And it came to pass that they returned to the land of Nephi, to inform their king, Amalickiah, who was a Nephite by birth, concerning their great loss.

 

TLW Chapter XXIX verses 20–23:

 

 

 

But the men of Croghan were prepared

for them ; and they let loose their weapons of war upon them, and set their

destroying engine to work, and smote the

men of Britain, hip and thigh, with great

slaughter.

 

21 And the deep ditch that surrounded

the fort was strewn with their slain and their

wounded.

 

22 So the host of Britain were dismayed

and overthrown, and fled in confusion from

the fort into the forest ; from whence, in the

dead of the night, they went into their vessels,

and departed from the place.

 

23 Now the loss of the men of Britain was

about an hundred two score and ten ; and of

the men of Columbia there was one slain

and seven wounded.

 

So we have a fortified location that was "prepared." We then have a "slaughter," followed by "wounded" and "slain" filling up ditches around the location. Those that were not slain then "fled." I don't see what part of this narrative is so unique or uncommon that it must indicate direct borrowing, nor do I see a reasonable process by which these specific and discreet words were culled from specific lexical contexts and then spliced into different lexical contexts. And the notion that the conceptual overlap indicates the broader narrative has been borrowed is silly. An attack on a fortified city that is unsuccessful and results in retreat into wilderness, with dead bodies filling the ditches around the city? That's not uncommon or unique at all. The connections only come to the surface when we squint hard enough for the actual details to fade from view, and at that point the relationship is so generic as to completely undermine any attempt to insist on a genetic relationship. Cities have prepared for battle since they first militarized thousands of years ago. Attacks have failed and retreats have taken place for just as long. Ditches have been dug around fortified towns and cities for thousands of years, and astonishingly enough, sometimes large amounts of people besieging those fortified towns and cities have died in the very ditches, so much so that they are described as being filled in texts spanning from Plutarch to Cortez to Pinkerton. I see nothing indicating direct borrowing here, and I would invite anyone who concludes otherwise to describe the specific sequence of decisions that lead from TLW to the composition in the BoM. I think anyone who tries will find that it's quite easy to guess that conceptual similarity = borrowing, but trying to show that it pans out when the rubber hits the road is much, much more difficult. 

Edited October 24, 2013 by maklelan

[maklelan]

A poster on another board who fancies himself and intellectual made the following comment in response to my point about the points of contact being too discreet and atomistic:

 

This point is being made a lot, but it's not really true. As others have mentioned there is the close thematic content as well, but concerning the "vernacular", pay close attention to the chart that the striplings from Canada provided; and their control set is huge. The point is, the "vernacular" resemblance is anything but common, or rather, the word clusters containing the vernacular if we want to put it that way instead. Remember, it's not just "curious workmanship" but "of-curious-workmanship-and" and also the context.

 

So let's examine this claim. "Close thematic content" seems to mean both texts refer repeatedly to war, and specifically to styles of warfare common to the era's recent past. This isn't striking, and it certainly isn't indicative of direct borrowing, nor is the collocation of "gold and silver," slain and wounded," or any number of other commonly paired word groups. I have paid close attention to the research presented on the website, and I don't see anything yet that conflicts with my impressions. Just telling me it's not just two words together, but FOUR words together also doesn't really show me much. Let's look at that:

 

TLW, p. 100:

 

And their weapons of war were of curious workmanship, and they sent forth balls of lead ; such as were unknown to Pharaoh when he followed the children of Israel down into the red sea.

 

The other occurrences of "of curious workmanship" have "of curious workmanship therein," which doesn't match the Book of Mormon at all, and three times "sword[,] of curious workmanship," which also isn't in the Book of Mormon.  

 

Compare the sentence on p. 100 to the two occurrences of "of curious workmanship and" in the Book of Mormon. 1 Ne 16:10:

 

And it came to pass that as my father arose in the morning, and went forth to the tent door, to his great astonishment he beheld upon the ground a round ball of curious workmanship; and it was of fine brass.

 

1 Ne 18:1:

 

and we did work timbers of curious workmanship. And the Lord did show me . . .

 

So the TLW phrase occurs within a predication, while the two BoM phrases (one of which is spread across two separate sentences) are just genitive of-constructions. These are two quite different grammatical constructions. The "and" of the BoM that isn't part of a separate sentence is separated by a semi-colon and serves to join a further description of the material makeup, while in TLW the "and"joins a functional description. Neither from the BoM have to do with weapons of war, either, which is peculiar, since the only other occurrence of "curious workmanship" does refer to weaponry. 

 

So we're left with the insistence that Joseph Smith saw "And their weapons of war were of curious workmanship, and they sent forth balls of lead," and thought, "Hey, I can use that. I'll extract only 'of curious workmanship and,' and insert it into sentences where I need a handy genitive of-construction followed by a conjunction. This is nonsensical. The phrase does not provide a free-standing sense unit that can function independently of a given context, so it's not something he had bouncing around in his head like a song he couldn't shake. Are we to believe he thought,

 

"Geez, 'a round ball . . .' 'a round ball . . .' What goes next? I can check out The Late War. There's always good stuff in there. . . . Hmm . . . Here's a place where it's describing a random object that has nothing to do with my round ball. Ah, 'of curious workmanship, and.' What should I put after the 'and'? I don't want to say it sent forth balls of lead. Gosh, what should go after the conjunction?"

 

If you want to insist that the inclusion of the initial "of" and the final "and" is significant in any way, you have to insist that Smith intentionally extracted that very phrase, and only that phrase. Again, that is nonsensical. But wait, there's more! A Google Books search confined to the years 1700 - 1829 returns over a dozen publications with the very phrase "of curious workmanship and," with most of them occurring in genitive of-constructions! But certainly you'll point out that those publications probably don't have as many other parallel vernacular as TLW, which is true, but the fact that this collection of common terminology found in the Book of Mormon is most concentrated in The Late War is in no way evidence of direct borrowing. As I have pointed out, all the evidence seems to show is that this book has the highest concentration of terminology from the Book of Mormon that had currency during that time period. It suggests influence of some kind, but it does not suggest direct borrowing. 

Edited October 24, 2013 by maklelan

[Bob Crockett]

Okay, here are the first 10 verse of both books posted side-by-side. Would cognaitiveharmony and Sethbag and John and Canard78 and Grimace or anyone else please begin pointing out the dumbfounding and uncanny and striking similarities in writing styles, phrasing, concepts, subjects, content, language, themes, and parallels. Please help me see that the Book of Mormon was as if it were a song that had already been written in the book, Late War.

 

 

Once the dumbfounding similarities have been pointed out for these 10 verses, I will post the next 10 verses.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade:  ALthough I completely agree that the one did not influence the other, a plagiarism case is not based upon the presence of dissimilarities.  I am chagrined to see such analysis employed, for instance, to challenge View of the Hebrews and other so-called works.

 

I was once the victim of plagiarism.  A 50-page law review article used, word for word, about four paragraphs of mine in a 30 page law review article I had published a couple of years before, but without attribution.   The plagiarist defended his perfidy on the theory that 99% of his article was totally dissimilar.  It didn't matter.

[maklelan]

Another commenter on another board brings up the following in response to my post here:

 

 

 

That's curious, because prior to Late History being discovered, maklelan was quite sure that language patterns like the cognate accusative were not common to English or Joseph Smith's information environment.

 

He then quotes a post of mine from July 2009. That is quite a fair bit "prior" to TLH being proliferated. My knowledge of, and feelings about, the translation method of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's literary environment have changed in many, many ways in the past 4+ years. This poster has seen my opinion change on more than one issue related to early Mormon literature since that time, so I hope he'll indulge me having refined my position since July of 2009 and not pretend that the disparity between my position now and my position then is a sudden revelation of the past week. I have for years insisted that the evidence suggests an anaphoric method of translation, which mutes the significance of ostensible semiticisms. In fact, I've been mocked on that other board on multiple occasions for calling the translation "richly anaphoric," after the posters went and looked up what that meant, of course.

Edited October 24, 2013 by maklelan

[pmccombs1]

So Grunder has examples of "style and theme"?  Just checking before I put time into reading his stuff as I should be doing some 'office' work right now instead of distracting myself with this topic.

 

Yes, he does. He shows a few examples of subject/content similarities and numerous examples of literary similarities, including Hebraisms and chiasmus.

[wenglund]

Wade, you probably won't find any correlations based on verse number....or placement of verses in the text. Nobody is saying that JS was an idiot. Nobody is saying that he copied this text closely. We're just saying that it reads very similarly in a variety of ways including phraseology, style, and theme and may very well have had a significant influence on the BoM.

 

I know that is what you are saying. And, I am logically testing your hypothesis.

 

Given what I have already posted, we now agree that the alleged correlation in phraseology, style, and theme isn't at the verse level.

 

The question then becomes, at what level, if at all, is there an alleged correlation or an alleged significant influence? Is it at the semi-chapter level, or the chapter level, or bi-chapter level, etc.?

 

And, if the alleged correlation isn't even at a bi-chapter level, then one may reasonably ask how one may reasonably claim that there is significant influence?

 

Since I already posted 10 verses, which is about half the first chapter for both books, would you agree that while there may be a very minor correlation in phraseology ("it came to past...in the year of...the same year"), there isn't much of a correlation in style, and certainly not in theme or significant influence at the semi-chapter level?

 

If so, then perhaps I might post the next 10 or so verses to see if you and others see a correlation or significant influence at the chapter level--that is, unless you are willing to concede that there isn't.

 

What I am trying to determine is whether the alleged correlations have an rhyme or reason to them, and are thus of significance, or if they are random and thus potentially coincidental and of no significance. In other words, given the hypothesis that the Late War significantly influenced the Book of Mormon, and given the sequence in which the Book of Mormon was produced, one may reasonably expect that at some level the significant influence would follow the sequence of production? Right?

 

However, if the significant influence doesn't follow the sequence of production, then the question needs to be answered: Why not?

 

Besides, some of the participants here suggest that as they began reading through the Late War, they were dumbfounded at the similarities. As I began reading through it, the opposite occurred. I am just trying to reconcile the two.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 24, 2013 by wenglund

[cognitiveharmony]

 

 

 

 

I was hoping for some better examples. Let's take a look at what they've suggested:

 

Alma 49:20–25 (no verse divisions):

 

 

TLW Chapter XXIX verses 20–23:

 

 

 

 

So we have a fortified location that was "prepared." We then have a "slaughter," followed by "wounded" and "slain" filling up ditches around the location. Those that were not slain then "fled." I don't see what part of this narrative is so unique or uncommon that it must indicate direct borrowing, nor do I see a reasonable process by which these specific and discreet words were culled from specific lexical contexts and then spliced into different lexical contexts. And the notion that the conceptual overlap indicates the broader narrative has been borrowed is silly. An attack on a fortified city that is unsuccessful and results in retreat into wilderness, with dead bodies filling the ditches around the city? That's not uncommon or unique at all. The connections only come to the surface when we squint hard enough for the actual details to fade from view, and at that point the relationship is so generic as to completely undermine any attempt to insist on a genetic relationship. Cities have prepared for battle since they first militarized thousands of years ago. Attacks have failed and retreats have taken place for just as long. Ditches have been dug around fortified towns and cities for thousands of years, and astonishingly enough, sometimes large amounts of people besieging those fortified towns and cities have died in the very ditches, so much so that they are described as being filled in texts spanning from Plutarch to Cortez to Pinkerton. I see nothing indicating direct borrowing here, and I would invite anyone who concludes otherwise to describe the specific sequence of decisions that lead from TLW to the composition in the BoM. I think anyone who tries will find that it's quite easy to guess that conceptual similarity = borrowing, but trying to show that it pans out when the rubber hits the road is much, much more difficult. 

 

 

Do you really not see the matching themes here? It's essentially the same story. There are many word matches but even more compelling is that the major details of the battle sequence are essentially the same. You then add to this that the secondary text appears to expand the primary text and you're left with what appears to be a direct influence. So if this sequence and theme are so common, would you be willing to provide another example? Surely you could do that? It would need to be actual history of course and you would get bonus points if it is written in a 19th century adaptation of King James english. Even more bonus points if it's within a decade of these two texts.

 

You can't prove plagiarism even in this instance, but a rational mind sees the similarities of these two texts especially in sequences like this and acknowledges that the first text very likely had influence on the second or there were other texts that influenced both of these texts similarly. I know that you've said that you already believe in a loose translation theory, so I'd really like to hear your take on what justifies this theory aside from texts like these that make a tight translation very unlikely. Don't go out of your way on my account if your busy though, I know I'm just some anonymous yahoo on a forum to whom you owe nothing.

[wenglund]

Nobody claimed there was a verse-to-verse correspondence between the two books, Wade. And nobody is claiming that Joseph Smith had the Late War at his side when he wrote The Book of Mormon.

 

The claim is that Joseph's writing was influenced by the book. And, if you look at this thread, and other threads that are on other boards on the internet, example after example after example shows that concepts appear in both books that transcend the coincidental.

 

Personally, Wade, I think you are being deliberately difficult in an attempt to obfuscate the issue and ridicule the participants in this conversation, and I can't figure out why. You come across as a thoughtful guy, so it puzzles me why you can't engage this issue with the same thoughtfulness that you've exhibited while engaging past issues.

 

See my response to cognitiveharmony above. There isn't any ridicule or intended difficulty in me logically and methodically challenging the hypothesis.  If my posting the texts side-by-side makes the hypothesis appear ridiculous, that is not my fault, but a function of self-evidence. Please have a little patience and take your own advise about thoughtfulness in return.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade:  ALthough I completely agree that the one did not influence the other, a plagiarism case is not based upon the presence of dissimilarities.  I am chagrined to see such analysis employed, for instance, to challenge View of the Hebrews and other so-called works.

 

Bob, I respect your sensitivity to the issue of plagiarism. However, I don't think anyone on either side is suggesting plagiarism. At best, they are suggesting "significant influence," in blocks of four words scattered throughout the text, which is a far cry even from the 10% block of text in your case.

 

As explained above, my intent isn't just to look at the presence of dissimilarities, but rather to determine at what level, if any, there is "significant influence," keeping in mind the sequence in which the Book of Mormon was produced. According to some of the participants here, as they began reading through the Late War, they were dumbfounded at the similarities. As I began reading through it, the opposite perception occurred. I am just trying to reconcile the two.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[WmLaw]

See my response to cognitiveharmony above. There isn't any ridicule or intended difficulty in me logically and methodically challenging the hypothesis. If my posting the texts side-by-side makes the hypothesis appear ridiculous, that is not my fault, but a function of self-evidence. Please have a little patience and take your own advise about thoughtfulness in return.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Who's hypothesis do you think you're methodically challenging?

[tsubotsubo]

I was interested by this, so I decided to search on the Internet and see if there's any web pages pre-2013 that mention both mormonism and 'Gilbert J Hunt'. I found an article someone wrote up in 2008 suggesting that Joseph Smith used a dictionary of some sort by John Walker to help write the Book of Mormon. It casually mentions that there were advertisements for John Walker's dictionary at the end of The Late War: http://www.rickgrunder.com/parallels/mp453.pdf

 

I did a search in this thread to see if this has been discussed yet, and couldn't find anything, but I apologize if everybody knew this already. Just interesting that a book that some people believe influenced the Book of Mormon was in the publisher's ads at the end of a different book that some people believed influenced the Book of Mormon.

 

22 cm. 103 pp. Page [90] and verso of p. 103 blank. AI 14811 and/or 14812. Bound in the same 

volume following Walker, . . . A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary, and Expositor of the English 

Language . . . (imprint as above; 71, 609 pp.) Many editions of Walker's dictionaries were printed 

throughout the early 1800s by urban and small-town publishers across the Northeast (including 

many in New York State). Unspecified editions were advertised for sale in such diverse 

publications as the Palmyra Herald for September 24, 1823 [iII:28], Poor Richard's Almanack for 1829 

(published by Elihu F. Marshall, Rochester, the first man to agree to print the Book of Mormon), 

and in the publisher's ads at the end of Gilbert J. Hunt's The Late War (MP 193).

Edited October 24, 2013 by tsubotsubo

[Alvino]

@canadaduane

 

I was saying that one doesn't need to assume the books you compared the BoM to (the vast majority of which don't even show statistically significant similarities) influenced the BoM in some way or another.

 

Are you saying your methodology requires such an assumption? That would be quite weird and I would like to know how, if you don't mind.

 

 

I think it might be a bit impolite to ask again something that you might not want to answer but I would appreciate it if you would, please.