Slippery Treasures and EModE

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/29/2018 at 4:29 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

I don’t know the answer to your question, but this is one of those passages that sticks out in glaring contrast to the EmodE data since it seems so strongly influenced by treasure hunting or folk magic culture.

Had you already identified this as an problem with the EMedE theory?

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/29/2018 at 10:02 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

The actual translator of the BofM may as well have been Dr. John Dee.

Translator, not author? What was the source he translated? If we are looking for a person who seemlessly wove scriptures into a religious prose story, that could be John Bunyan (1678).

Edited October 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Translator, not author? What was the source he translated? If we are looking for a person who seemlessly wovenscripturev intom a religious prose story, that could be John Bunyan (1678).

Certainly could, although Bunyan's bestseller was a tour de force in its own right.  As to "translator" or "author," I suppose that depends on whether one considers the BofM an EModE pseudepigraphon or an authentic work rendered first in reformed Egyptian.

[JarMan]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for taking the time to look at this. The passage you quoted does appear to have a loose chiastic structure.  I would be interested in any other information you might discover. As to the OP, are you aware of any references to buried or slippery treasure or cursed land in his works? Had you already been looking at Helaman 13 and Mormon 1 with this topic in mind?

I didn't start looking into this topic until this thread. It's amazing to me, though, that whenever I start to dig into a particular Book of Mormon subject I always find an early modern connection. Here's what Grotius said about buried treasure in his "Rights of War and Peace" which is a legal work.

Quote

Among Things that have no Owner, are reckoned Treasures, that is, Money, whose Owner is not known;1 for what appears not, is, as if it were not. Wherefore such Treasures naturally belong to the Finder, that is, to him who moves them from the Place, and secures them; yet not so, but that2 Laws or Customs may order it otherwise. Plato3 would have Notice given to the Magistrates, and the Oracle[251] consulted. And Apollonius looking upon a Treasure that was found as a particular Kindness of God,4 adjudg’d it to the best Man. The Hebrews5 gave it [641] to the Owner of the Ground wherein it was found,6 as may be gather’d from Christ’s Parable, Matt. xiii. 44. And that the Syrians did the same, I infer from a Story in Philostratus, Book VI. Chap. XVI. The Laws of the Roman Emperors are very various upon this Subject, as appears partly from7 their Constitutions, and partly from the Histories8 of Lampridius, Zonaras and Cedrenus. The Germans awarded those Treasures,In Adr. and Sever. and indeed all other ἀδέσποτα, Things without an Owner, to their Prince, which now is grown so common, that it may pass for a Law of Nations. For it is now observed in Germany, France, England, Spain and Denmark. We have already sufficiently9 shewn why this cannot be charged with Injustice.

As for curses, I am not aware of anything he wrote on the subject. However, he wrote extensively about the bible, including annotations on both the Old and New Testament and would likely have touched on the subject in those works. I haven't been able to find an English translation of these works, though.

[Bernard Gui]

19 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I didn't start looking into this topic until this thread. It's amazing to me, though, that whenever I start to dig into a particular Book of Mormon subject I always find an early modern connection. Here's what Grotius said about buried treasure in his "Rights of War and Peace" which is a legal work.

As for curses, I am not aware of anything he wrote on the subject. However, he wrote extensively about the bible, including annotations on both the Old and New Testament and would likely have touched on the subject in those works. I haven't been able to find an English translation of these works, though.

I really appreciate your thoughtful responses. I am particularly interested in graded parallelism (climax or stair step) in the BoM. It is used frequently to teach the Plan of Salvation. I have started several threads about it here. As you continue your research I would like to know if you notice any in Grotius’s writings. They are easy to spot. Please keep us up to date.

Quote

Moroni 8:24 Behold, my son, this thing ought not to be; for repentance is unto them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken law.
25 And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins;
26 And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God.

 

Edited October 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Rajah Manchou]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

I am particularly interested in graded parallelism in the BoM. It is used frequently to teach the Plan of Salvation.

Other than Moroni 8, where else do you find these? or could you link me to your previous posts on the topic?
Thanks

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Certainly could, although Bunyan's bestseller was a tour de force in its own right.  As to "translator" or "author," I suppose that depends on whether one considers the BofM an EModE pseudepigraphon or an authentic work rendered first in reformed Egyptian.

I was asking about your comment that Dr. John Dee [EDIT] could have been the translator. 

Edited October 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Other than Moroni 8, where else do you find these? or could you link me to your previous posts on the topic?
Thanks

The form anadiplosis, stair step, or climax most often occurs in passages that deal with the plan of salvation and the atonement. Some even allude to temple knowledge. Nephi was the first to use this form. Since later writers also used it (Alma, Mormon, and Moroni in particular) one might assume it became imbedded in the Nephite thinking/writing system.

That it may have originated in the Old World is less intriguing to me than the fact that throughout their history, Nephites used it as an effective rhetorical or didactic device when they taught the Plan of Salvation. Nephite prophets often used it to underscore important points with “problem” listeners such as Laman, Lemuel, Zeezrom, Corianton, Lamanites, and unbelievers.  

Examples of gradated parallelism span the entire history of the Nephites and include a variety of speakers, from Lehi to Moroni, but there are none from Lamanite or Jaredite prophets or writers.  How can this be explained? While itis possible that they are a one-off occurrence - or that Joseph Smith was faking a Hebraic poetic style he intuited by reading a couple of Bible examples or some of the classical writers, that it was just dumb luck or a toss of the dice given so many pages of text, or that as a young man he structured his thoughts in this manner because that is the way everyone in New England spoke and wrote at the time, or that his father or a minister of a local church taught him how to do it, or that Martin Harris, Sidney Rigdon, or Oliver Cowdery picked it up somewhere and introduced it to him before he translated the book - since their usage appears to be frequent, methodical, and intentional, it is unlikely that serendipity on the part of Joseph Smith can account for them.  If the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient document, it is reasonable to conclude that literate Nephites such as Nephi, Jacob, Alma, Benjamin, Mormon and Moroni used it in their teaching style, especially when the topic was the plan of salvation, because this was a common means of Nephite rhetorical expression. Whatever one thinks, these are remarkably precise and concise expositions of the plan of salvation.

 Would it be reasonable to conclude that whoever in the Early Modern English era authored the Book of Mormon would have used this parallelism in his/her other writings?

Donald Parry has identified many of these under his headings gradation and progression. Here are some that I think are significant

1.    1 NEPHI 10:11                            LEHI (BY NEPHI) TO LAMAN AND LEMUEL 

2.    1 NEPHI 15: 13-20        NEPHI TO LAMAN AND LEMUEL 

3.    1 NEPHI 15:33-35          NEPHI TO LAMAN AND LEMUEL 

4.    1 NEPHI 19:2-5                           NEPHI TO READER 

5.    1 NEPHI 22:9-12                        NEPHI TO LAMAN AND LEMUEL 

6.    2 NEPHI 1:13                  LEHI TO LAMAN AND LEMUEL 

7.    2 NEPHI 9:6-9                 JACOB TO HIS PEOPLE 

8.    2 NEPHI 9:25-26                        JACOB TO HIS PEOPLE 

9.    2 NEPHI 25:4-5                           NEPHI COMMENTS ON ISAIAH TO HIS PEOPLE 

10.  2 NEPHI 31:2-3                           NEPHI TO HIS BELOVED BRETHREN 

11.  MOSIAH 2:17-19                         KING BENJAMIN TO HIS PEOPLE 

12.  ALMA 5:37-38                ALMA TO PEOPLE OF ZARAHEMLA 

13.  ALMA 13:22                                 ALMA TO ZEEZROM 

14.  ALMA 32: 11-14              ALMA TO THE POOR ON THE HILL ONIDAH

15.  ALMA 41:13-14                           ALMA TO CORIANTON 

16.  ALMA 42:17-20                           ALMA TO CORIANTON 

17.  ALMA 42:23                                 ALMA TO CORIANTON 

18.  ALMA 61:8                                   PAHORAN TO MORONI 

19.  HELAMAN 5:6-8                          HELAMAN TO HIS SONS 

20.  MORMON 9:11-13          MORMON TO UNBELIEVERS 

21.  ETHER 3: 15                                JESUS TO BROTHER OF JARED 

22.  MORONI 8:25-26                        MORMON TO MORONI 

23.  MORONI 10:20-23          MORONI TO THE LAMANITES 

24.  MORONI 10:32-34          MORONI TO LAMANITES 

 

An examination of these examples reveals some common characteristics: 

·     All examples except one make a significant doctrinal statement. 

·     The examples are used as a teaching tool when something important needs to be communicated in a plain and easy to understand manner. 

·     None is copied from the Bible. 

·     Each example appears in an address or letter from a prophet or leader. 

·     Each example is in various prophets’ own words, not in editorial comments written by Mormon. 

·     Seven of the examples occur in discussions that include Abraham or the Abrahamic covenant.

·     Eight illuminate the Plan of Salvation in logical sequences. 

·     At least four include teachings that faithful LDS will recognize as information learned in the temple. 

 

Edited October 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Rajah Manchou]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

·     The examples are used as a teaching tool when something important needs to be communicated in a plain and easy to understand manner. 

Interesting stuff. Reminds me of texts that started out as oral histories. The repetitive forms made it easier to memorize long strings. 

[clarkgoble]

On 9/29/2018 at 2:12 PM, Bernard Gui said:

1. Is anyone aware of other literary references to such notions as slippery treasure, tools, swords, etc., especially in the Early Moden English time period?

2. This is often used by BoM critics as evidence Joseph Smith was writing from his experience with the treasure-seeking atmosphere in early 19th-century upstate New York. Does the EModE theory that Joseph was not the author of the BoM text but was reading someone else’s words, whatever their source, resolve this issue?

Slippery treasure as a phrase definitely seems 19th century and not 16th. The idea can be found earlier but the phrase ties the text to this later period - at least I wasn't able to find the phrase in older texts on Google Books. Of course the phrase "slippery treasure" doesn't appear in the Book of Mormon despite it being a common phrase. But slippery near either treasure or riches appears in a few places. I couldn't find it in older texts though. That said John Dee also was a treasure hunter and in many ways the originator of the tradition in early 19th century New England. That's the mid to late 16th century. The tradition obviously predates Dee, but he was well known enough that I think he's the originator. That said, there was a law passed in 1563 making it illegal to search for treasure with magic. Which of course suggests the tradition was fairly significant at the time. However that word "slippery" doesn't appear to be used relative to these earlier traditions.

I think most of those pushing EModE still concede some irreducible elements of the 19th century. It's an argument for Joseph not being the author not necessarily authorship being in the 16th century. Although some like Jarman make that claim.

Kevin Barney noted some similarities of the Book of Mormon idea to The Egyptian text of Amenemope which may be an influence on the similar Biblical passages as well.

Edited October 2, 2018 by clarkgoble

[JarMan]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would you agree that if Grotius is the author the Book of Mormon, then it’s setting would not be in the New World but some other place? If he intended it to be about the Native Americans, why would he make them Hebrews rather than Europeans, Africans, or Asians?

I think Grotius' intended setting for the Book of Mormon is most likely mesoamerica. This is something I've discussed at length before but I'll give you the short version here. In his time there was a lot of speculation about where the natives of America came from. Many people said they were the lost tribes. Some even said they came from Asia following the tower of Babel. There were many other theories. Grotius was well aware of these theories when he got into an acrimonious public debate over the subject with a fellow Dutchman names Joannes de Laet. I've suggested three possible explanations for the disconnect between Grotius' published views and the Book of Mormon. 1) His published views were meant to be a criticism of the Spanish/Portuguese treatment of the natives. The Catholic Spanish/Portuguese justified their treatment of the natives based on the fact that they were uncivilized barbarians. By proposing origins of European, Christian Africans, and Chinese he was saying the natives were civilized and not deserving of the treatment they received. At this time the Dutch were at war with the Spanish and Portuguese and he was often very critical of them. 2) His published views could have been a red herring meant to provide him cover in case the Book of Mormon manuscript was discovered. People were still being executed for heresy during that time and this writing, if discovered, would have seemed heretical to just about everyone. 3) An epic religious work represented as actual history in a world far away needs a starting point that's understandable and important to the intended audience. 600 BC Jerusalem fits the bill nicely. So despite what he really thought about the origins of the natives, he needed a story that could convey the message he wanted to send.

I'll add a fourth explanation, here, and that is that Grotius believed in a model of multiple origins that included the Book of Mormon peoples and the peoples in his published views. There is an ambiguous passage in his paper that may have him proposing an Indonesian origin, as well. These four possible explanations are not mutually exclusive so there may have been a combination of things going on.

[Benjamin Seeker]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Had you already identified this as an problem with the EMedE theory?

That’s not what I meant, really. I just meant that this passage can be seen as closely related to 19th century treasure hunting, as we’ve been going back and forth about on the thread.

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

That’s not what I meant, really. I just meant that this passage can be seen as closely related to 19th century treasure hunting, as we’ve been going back and forth about on the thread.

OK. Thanks. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I think Grotius' intended setting for the Book of Mormon is most likely mesoamerica. This is something I've discussed at length before but I'll give you the short version here. In his time there was a lot of speculation about where the natives of America came from. Many people said they were the lost tribes. Some even said they came from Asia following the tower of Babel. There were many other theories. Grotius was well aware of these theories when he got into an acrimonious public debate over the subject with a fellow Dutchman names Joannes de Laet. I've suggested three possible explanations for the disconnect between Grotius' published views and the Book of Mormon. 1) His published views were meant to be a criticism of the Spanish/Portuguese treatment of the natives. The Catholic Spanish/Portuguese justified their treatment of the natives based on the fact that they were uncivilized barbarians. By proposing origins of European, Christian Africans, and Chinese he was saying the natives were civilized and not deserving of the treatment they received. At this time the Dutch were at war with the Spanish and Portuguese and he was often very critical of them. 2) His published views could have been a red herring meant to provide him cover in case the Book of Mormon manuscript was discovered. People were still being executed for heresy during that time and this writing, if discovered, would have seemed heretical to just about everyone. 3) An epic religious work represented as actual history in a world far away needs a starting point that's understandable and important to the intended audience. 600 BC Jerusalem fits the bill nicely. So despite what he really thought about the origins of the natives, he needed a story that could convey the message he wanted to send.

I'll add a fourth explanation, here, and that is that Grotius believed in a model of multiple origins that included the Book of Mormon peoples and the peoples in his published views. There is an ambiguous passage in his paper that may have him proposing an Indonesian origin, as well. These four possible explanations are not mutually exclusive so there may have been a combination of things going on.

Thank you. I read about his debate with de Laet when you suggested Grotius as a possible author. Your explanation of how he may have come to write a book about a Hebrew origin of Native Americans is interesting, but would seem hard to support.

Edited October 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Slippery treasure as a phrase definitely seems 19th century and not 16th. The idea can be found earlier but the phrase ties the text to this later period - at least I wasn't able to find the phrase in older texts on Google Books. Of course the phrase "slippery treasure" doesn't appear in the Book of Mormon despite it being a common phrase. But slippery near either treasure or riches appears in a few places. I couldn't find it in older texts though. That said John Dee also was a treasure hunter and in many ways the originator of the tradition in early 19th century New England. That's the mid to late 16th century. The tradition obviously predates Dee, but he was well known enough that I think he's the originator. That said, there was a law passed in 1563 making it illegal to search for treasure with magic. Which of course suggests the tradition was fairly significant at the time. However that word "slippery" doesn't appear to be used relative to these earlier traditions.

I think most of those pushing EModE still concede some irreducible elements of the 19th century. It's an argument for Joseph not being the author not necessarily authorship being in the 16th century. Although some like Jarman make that claim.

Kevin Barney noted some similarities of the Book of Mormon idea to The Egyptian text of Amenemope which may be an influence on the similar Biblical passages as well.

Thank you for taking the time to look at this and share your information. Samuel includes tools and weapons in the things that will evade the owners in future wars, and similar things happened in the Jaredite wars. In both cases, demonic influences are asserted. 

This must be the same John Dee Robert F. Smith mentioned above.

Quote

The actual translator of the BofM may as well have been Dr. John Dee.

 

Edited October 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I was asking about your comment  that Dr. John Gee could have been the translator. 

I wasn't referring to the 21st century Dr John Gee, but rather to the famed magus Dr John Dee (1507-1609):

 

Dee was a graduate of Cambridge University, and was comfortable with angels and seerstones.  See https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/authors/the-man-who-spoke-to-angels/ .

[Bernard Gui]

My bad. I know it was Dr. John Dee because I looked him up after you mentioned him. Interesting fellow. I’m going to steal his Elizabethan finger pointers. I will definitely read more about him.

 Gee was an unfortunate and confusing (humorous?) typo. And another very interesting fellow, BTW,  but in a totally different sense. Sorry for the confusion, and thank you for the information.

I realize your comment about him being the translator was facetious, but did you mean anything more by it?

Edited October 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[champatsch]

Here is the earliest example I found in EEBO Phase 1 texts:

(16c: 1550s; 1555, A20032 | page image 44)
As the poet hath in these verses, by the marchaunt declared the desyre that couetous men haue to obteyne slippery riches,

There were five more relevant examples I saw, including this one:

(17c: 1640s; 1642, A50529 | page 316)
Make unto your selves friends of the unrighteous Mammon, (that is, of these slippery and deceitfull riches,
 

[clarkgoble]

55 minutes ago, champatsch said:

Here is the earliest example I found in EEBO Phase 1 texts:

(16c: 1550s; 1555, A20032 | page image 44)
As the poet hath in these verses, by the marchaunt declared the desyre that couetous men haue to obteyne slippery riches,

There were five more relevant examples I saw, including this one:

(17c: 1640s; 1642, A50529 | page 316)
Make unto your selves friends of the unrighteous Mammon, (that is, of these slippery and deceitfull riches,
 

Thanks. I was just checking Google. Next time I'll be sure to check EEBO. Although you didn't find slippery treasure which is the common 19th century form and what Brookes makes a big deal out of.

Edited October 3, 2018 by clarkgoble

[JarMan]

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Thanks. I was just checking Google. Next time I'll be sure to check EEBO. Although you didn't find slippery treasure which is the common 19th century form and what Brookes makes a big deal out of.

I guess I'm underwhelmed by the supposed 19th Century connection to slippery treasure. One reason is the different meanings of the word treasure. As far as I can tell the Book of Mormon exclusively uses treasure to mean something valuable that is known and possessed by the owner (until it slips away) The word riches is a good synonym. The sense of the word meaning an unknown and yet to be found valuable item or horde is a different meaning of treasure. This is more of a hidden, valuable cache type of thing. The Book of Mormon buried treasure is a different thing than the Joseph-with-a-shovel buried treasure since the first is a known thing with a known location waiting to be recovered by the owner when danger passes; the second is an unknown thing in an unknown location, where someone who has never owned it hopes to find and recover it using some type of divination or magic. Early modern European treasure can be either of these types of treasure which makes it a good match for the Book of Mormon. But the same can't really be said about 19th Century American treasure so it's a poor match for what's in the Book of Mormon.

[JarMan]

9 hours ago, champatsch said:

Here is the earliest example I found in EEBO Phase 1 texts:

(16c: 1550s; 1555, A20032 | page image 44)
As the poet hath in these verses, by the marchaunt declared the desyre that couetous men haue to obteyne slippery riches,

There were five more relevant examples I saw, including this one:

(17c: 1640s; 1642, A50529 | page 316)
Make unto your selves friends of the unrighteous Mammon, (that is, of these slippery and deceitfull riches,
 

I also noticed several matches in EEBO with slippery riches. A couple of them were expositions on Proverbs 23:5.

Quote

Wilt thou set thine eyes upon that which is not? for riches certainly make themselves wings; they fly away as an eagle toward heaven.

The commentators described riches as being slippery. I notice that the riches in this verse fly away (or become slippery) for basically the same reason given in Helaman 13:20.

Quote

And the day shall come that they shall hide up their treasures, because they have set their hearts upon riches; and because they have set their hearts upon their riches, and will hide up their treasures when they shall flee before their enemies; because they will not hide them up unto me, cursed be they and also their treasures; and in that day shall they be smitten, saith the Lord.

It seems reasonable to me that the discussion of riches or treasure slipping away in the Book of Mormon is influenced by Proverbs 23:5. The whole idea is that if you care more about wealth than God you may end up losing it.

[Rajah Manchou]

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

I also noticed several matches in EEBO with slippery riches. A couple of them were expositions on Proverbs 23:5.

The commentators described riches as being slippery. I notice that the riches in this verse fly away (or become slippery) for basically the same reason given in Helaman 13:20.

It seems reasonable to me that the discussion of riches or treasure slipping away in the Book of Mormon is influenced by Proverbs 23:5. The whole idea is that if you care more about wealth than God you may end up losing it.

This is not uncommon. I've already mentioned the traditions of the jinn. I pulled this from a text about magic and tin mining in the Malay animist culture with strong Arabic/Islamic influences:

"Malays, as animists, believed in a soul-spirit, not only for human beings but also for animals and certain inanimate objects like tin. Although this soul-spirit was usually thought of as an exact replica of the physical form, in the manner of the ‘ka' of the ancient Egyptians or astral body among western spiritualists, the soul of one of the lower strata of creation, a metal for example, might occasionally assume the guise of an animal or bird (Skeat, p 52).

"For every Malay knew that the tin did not just happen, but that it was brought to a specified place by power of the pawang's incantations, which caused its soul-spirit, usually in the guise of a buffalo, to travel underground to the area he had selected (Skeat, p. 250). The pawang formerly had a lucrative calling, for not only had provision to be made to ensure that continuing supplies of ore would be available to the diggers, but precautions had also to be taken against some magical misfortune that might have led to the disappearance of the tin already there. At the time of the opening of the mine he had to erect an altar, and then with due ceremony evoke the local land-spirit to assist in the enterprise. There were also ill-natured demons lurking in the background who had to be propitiated, for they were just waiting for the opportunity too haunt anyone incautious enough to break one of the many taboos that existed in the tin industry. Only the pawang with his secret charms and magic animals could achieve this.

Tin "hat" and animal money, by William Shaw and Mohd. Kassim Haji Ali

Kuala Lumpur, Muzium Negara [1970] 

17, [11] p. illus., map, 9 plates. 22 cm. 

Edited October 4, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Bernard Gui]

Very interesting stuff. Thank you all for sharing what you have found. 

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, JarMan said:

I also noticed several matches in EEBO with slippery riches. A couple of them were expositions on Proverbs 23:5.

The commentators described riches as being slippery. I notice that the riches in this verse fly away (or become slippery) for basically the same reason given in Helaman 13:20.

It seems reasonable to me that the discussion of riches or treasure slipping away in the Book of Mormon is influenced by Proverbs 23:5. The whole idea is that if you care more about wealth than God you may end up losing it.

I think the traditional reading is Proverbs 23:5. You can see that back when Brooke's Refiner's Fire first came out and people pointed to it as the likely source rather than "hermeticism." As I mentioned earlier slippery treasure is a different case as a phrase, but the phrase technically isn't in the Book of Mormon.

The problem with pushing this all to Proverbs 23:5 is some witnesses attributing such ideas to the Book of Mormon plates. I can't find the reference at the moment but there's an account that when they attempted to take the plates early they moved. The idea is the objects themselves moving and thus a bit more than Prov 23:5. Of course if one is attempting to argue Joseph isn't the author then that's less relevant.

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

"Malays, as animists, believed in a soul-spirit, not only for human beings but also for animals and certain inanimate objects like tin. Although this soul-spirit was usually thought of as an exact replica of the physical form, in the manner of the ‘ka' of the ancient Egyptians or astral body among western spiritualists, the soul of one of the lower strata of creation, a metal for example, might occasionally assume the guise of an animal or bird (Skeat, p 52).

This is a common belief in most cultures. The remnant in early American "magic" or "hermeticism" is really the same thing. It's more pronounced and given a stronger theoretical basis in hermetic and neoplatonic culture during the Renaissance but really it's just the same old idea. 

You encounter this regularly even today. In fact it's a question being more often asked in surveys to capture "post religion" beliefs that are still very superstitious. I can't find the recent poll but it was something like 1/4 of respondents still believe something like this with roughly the same response rate among Christians and Nones.

 

 

Edited October 4, 2018 by clarkgoble

[JarMan]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The problem with pushing this all to Proverbs 23:5 is some witnesses attributing such ideas to the Book of Mormon plates. I can't find the reference at the moment but there's an account that when they attempted to take the plates early they moved. The idea is the objects themselves moving and thus a bit more than Prov 23:5. Of course if one is attempting to argue Joseph isn't the author then that's less relevant.

What witnesses say about the plates or other treasure seeking activities and what is inside the Book of Mormon are two different things. Context is important and, in this case, the two contexts are completely different. However, if you compare the context of the relevant Book of Mormon passages to an early modern European context (30 Years War had armies roaming Europe, people were burying their valuables to hide them from these armies, some of the people couldn't find the valuables when they went back and looked) then you see a close resemblance. So it's not just about Proverbs 23:5. Proverbs 23:5 is helpful, though, because you have early modern writers talking about this verse using the word slippery to refer to people's riches. We also have a unity of message in Proverbs 23:5, the early modern discussion of it, and the Book of Mormon.