Did Mitchill, Not Anthon Inspire Martin Harris' Funding? What Implications For Authorship?

[canard78]

Many consider Charles Anthon to be the main influencer for Martin Harris' confidence in funding the Book of Mormon. The visit to Mitchill after Anthon may have been a greater reassurance to Harris of the Book of Mormon's plausibility and Anthon should not be given all the credit.

Mitchill's published theories have several implications that I'd welcome your thoughts on:

1. The similarity of Mitchill's and other 19thC ideas around the origin of the Indians (now broadly debunked) to BoM themes meant there was probably a greater propensity for people to accept the Book of Mormon in the 19thC. In essence, the Indian theories could have made the Book of Mormon context and message seem more plausible to those who received it in the early days. Were Mitchill/Ethan Smith/Boudinot/Josiah Priest etc's theories part of God's plan to create a fertile ground to publish the BoM into?
   
2. Before the BoM was published, some members of the publishing team had contact with people who promoted ideas that share similarities with the Book of Mormon (Cowdery - Ethan Smith and Harris - Samuel Mitchill). These provide support to an 'authorship' theory.' I'd be interested to discuss them. View of the Hebrews has been discussed thoroughly, but I couldn't find much online addressing the potential influence Mitchill could have had on content if an authorship theory is being debated.
   
3. If Mitchill, not Anthon, (in full or in part) convinced Harris, it also undermines the argument that says 'we must believe Harris not Anthon because he invested his money after meeting Anthon.'
   

So a little more information:

Martin Harris and Charles Anthon gave conflicting accounts of the 'sealed book/Anthon manuscript' meeting. Some say it must have happened as Harris claims, given he return and invested in the Book of Mormon venture. E.g.

How likely are the chances that a hardheaded businessman or "farmer"--call him what you will-- like Martin Harris would dig down in his own pocket and provide three thousand dollars to defray the cost of the Book of Mormon if he hadn't been convinced by Professor Anthon that the characters on the manuscript carried by him were genuine?

Dr. Sidney B. Sperry, Answers to Book of Mormon Questions, 1967, http://www.shields-r...rry/AChap09.htm

Also recently on another thread:

As they say on CSI, follow the evidence. Who contradicted himself. Look at the motives for each. Harris was checking to see if there was a credible reason to invest his mortgage, while Anton had his professional reputation at stake. I personally believe Harris, and think Anton had been "fooled" by the circumstances. He assumed that that the translation of the plates was done by a scholar, and was merely doing a courtesy. He did not realize until after giving his opinion the circumstances surrounding the translation.

This line of thinking is undermined if Martin Harris got a reassurance from a different person. This appears to have happened at the next appointment on the trip when Harris "left [Anthon] and went to Dr. Mitchell (sic), who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation."

D.H.C., I, 19-20

Richard E. Bennett, professor of Church History and Doctrine at BYU, has done extensive research into Mitchill's background and influence on Harris.

There's a short lecture here: http://speeches.byu....iewitem&id=1903

And a very in-depth article here: http://maxwellinstit...20&num=2&id=609

In brief,

• In 1795, Professor Samuel Mitchill of Columbia College started studying the history of the Indians and reached the conclusion that groups from east Asia/China (the Tartars), Polynesia (Malays) and Europe (Skandinavians) lived together.
  
• Bennett says: the Malays and Europeans were a “more delicate race”, and “[had greater proficiency] in the arts, particularly of making cloths, clearing the ground, and erecting works of defense.” Despite this refinement, the Tartars encroached and “overwhelmed and destroyed both peoples in a long series of terrible conflicts centered primarily in upstate New York.” Mitchill started teaching these in 1816.
  
• Bennett ads: "a scientific belief in warring ancient American peoples, some from the north, others from the Polynesian islands, wherein the former exterminated the latter in a series of great battles in upstate New York, was very much in vogue among many respected observers at the time of the publication of the Book of Mormon.”
  

We don't have an original account by Harris or Mitchill of their conversation, but Harris seems to have shared the details of the meeting with Charles Butler, from whom Harris tried to borrow money and may have used the details of the Mitchill meeting to try to convince Butler. According to an interview Butler gave to journalist James Gordon Bennett, Harris told him that Mitchill "looked at his engravings—made a learned dissertation on them" and "compared them with other hieroglyphics—thought them very curious—and [said] they were the characters of a nation now extinct which he named."

This is a third hand account - so make of it what you will. There's currently nothing else from the conversation to go on. Richard E. Bennett doesn't challenge or question Butler's account. One of the accounts comes from James Gordon Bennett's journal entry about the interview, the other from an article in the (New York) Morning Courier and Enquirer on 1 September 1831.

Harris met Mitchill in Feb 1828. Martin became scribe to the Book of Mormon April-June 1828. Harris was later replaced by Cowdery in 1829 before its publication in 1830.

I'd be interested in your perspective on the following:

• Do you accept the Butler/Bennett account of Harris' meeting with Mitchill? If so, does that reduce the credibility of the argument that Anthon did confirm the writings as being accurate before destroying the certificate?
  
• If so, does the church history team need to develop the account of Harris' trip further than the over-focus on Anthon? "Anthon" is mentioned over 8,500 times on lds.org, "Mitchill" 109 times (as of 22 Dec '12).
  
• Given Harris is known to have had a face to face meeting with a person promoting a now extinct "delicate race" whose final battles were fought in upstate New York a few months before he started as scribe, is this another issue that supports an authorship theory? Or is it simply a part of God's great plan to ensure that several (since disproved) Indian origin theories were in circulation which allowed the Book of Mormon to be published into a society more willing and open to accept its historical claims and context?
  

Edited December 22, 2012 by canard78

[Duncan]

Many consider Charles Anthon to be the main influencer for Martin Harris' confidence in funding the Book of Mormon. The visit to Mitchill after Anthon may have been a greater reassurance to Harris of the Book of Mormon's plausibility and Anthon should not be given all the credit.

Mitchill's published theories have several implications that I'd welcome your thoughts on:

1. The similarity of Mitchill's and other 19thC ideas around the origin of the Indians (now broadly debunked) to BoM themes meant there was probably a greater propensity for people to accept the Book of Mormon in the 19thC. In essence, the Indian theories could have made the Book of Mormon context and message seem more plausible to those who received it in the early days. Were Mitchill/Ethan Smith/Boudinot/Josiah Priest etc's theories part of God's plan to create a fertile ground to publish the BoM into?
   
2. Before the BoM was published, some members of the publishing team had contact with people who promoted ideas that share similarities with the Book of Mormon (Cowdery - Ethan Smith and Harris - Samuel Mitchill). These provide support to an 'authorship' theory.' I'd be interested to discuss them. View of the Hebrews has been discussed thoroughly, but I couldn't find much online addressing the potential influence Mitchill could have had on content if an authorship theory is being debated.
   
3. If Mitchill, not Anthon, (in full or in part) convinced Harris, it also undermines the argument that says 'we must believe Harris not Anthon because he invested his money after meeting Anthon.'
   

So a little more information:

Martin Harris and Charles Anthon gave conflicting accounts of the 'sealed book/Anthon manuscript' meeting. Some say it must have happened as Harris claims, given he return and invested in the Book of Mormon venture. E.g.

Dr. Sidney B. Sperry, Answers to Book of Mormon Questions, 1967, http://www.shields-r...rry/AChap09.htm

Also recently on another thread:

This line of thinking is undermined if Martin Harris got a reassurance from a different person. This appears to have happened at the next appointment on the trip when Harris "left [Anthon] and went to Dr. Mitchell (sic), who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation."

D.H.C., I, 19-20

Richard E. Bennett, professor of Church History and Doctrine at BYU, has done extensive research into Mitchill's background and influence on Harris.

There's a short lecture here: http://speeches.byu....iewitem&id=1903

And a very in-depth article here: http://maxwellinstit...20&num=2&id=609

In brief,

• In 1795, Professor Samuel Mitchill of Columbia College started studying the history of the Indians and reached the conclusion that groups from east Asia/China (the Tartars), Polynesia (Malays) and Europe (Skandinavians) lived together.
  
• Bennett says: the Malays and Europeans were a “more delicate race”, and “[had greater proficiency] in the arts, particularly of making cloths, clearing the ground, and erecting works of defense.” Despite this refinement, the Tartars encroached and “overwhelmed and destroyed both peoples in a long series of terrible conflicts centered primarily in upstate New York.” Mitchill started teaching these in 1816.
  
• Bennett ads: "a scientific belief in warring ancient American peoples, some from the north, others from the Polynesian islands, wherein the former exterminated the latter in a series of great battles in upstate New York, was very much in vogue among many respected observers at the time of the publication of the Book of Mormon.”
  

We don't have an original account by Harris or Mitchill of their conversation, but Harris seems to have shared the details of the meeting with Charles Butler, from whom Harris tried to borrow money and may have used the details of the Mitchill meeting to try to convince Butler. According to an interview Butler gave to journalist James Gordon Bennett, Harris told him that Mitchill "looked at his engravings—made a learned dissertation on them" and "compared them with other hieroglyphics—thought them very curious—and [said] they were the characters of a nation now extinct which he named."

This is a third hand account - so make of it what you will. There's currently nothing else from the conversation to go on. Richard E. Bennett doesn't challenge or question Butler's account. One of the accounts comes from James Gordon Bennett's journal entry about the interview, the other from an article in the (New York) Morning Courier and Enquirer on 1 September 1831.

Harris met Mitchill in Feb 1828. Martin became scribe to the Book of Mormon April-June 1828. Harris was later replaced by Cowdery in 1829 before its publication in 1830.

I'd be interested in your perspective on the following:

• Do you accept the Butler/Bennett account of Harris' meeting with Mitchill? If so, does that reduce the credibility of the argument that Anthon did confirm the writings as being accurate before destroying the certificate?
  
• If so, does the church history team need to develop the account of Harris' trip further than the over-focus on Anthon? "Anthon" is mentioned over 8,500 times on lds.org, "Mitchill" 109 times (as of 22 Dec '12).
  
• Given Harris is known to have had a face to face meeting with a person promoting a now extinct "delicate race" whose final battles were fought in upstate New York a few months before he started as scribe, is this another issue that supports an authorship theory? Or is it simply a part of God's great plan to ensure that several (since disproved) Indian origin theories were in circulation which allowed the Book of Mormon to be published into a society more willing and open to accept its historical claims and context?
  

Richard Bennett used to be my Stake President and is a stellar, stellar spiritual guy, he is the real deal. You can email him as well, he is most helpful!

[canard78]

Richard Bennett used to be my Stake President and is a stellar, stellar spiritual guy, he is the real deal. You can email him as well, he is most helpful!

Cool - he seems a very well-read guy too. I wonder whether he considers it information that could contribute to shaking faith? I know that's not his intention in any way. For those who have uncertainties the article offers an uncomfortable reality about the situation before the Book of Mormon's publication.

The more I read around the environment at the time, the more I question the Book of Mormon's historicity. I still find divinity in the published words - but I find uncertainty in its coming forth.

[Duncan]

Cool - he seems a very well-read guy too. I wonder whether he considers it information that could contribute to shaking faith? I know that's not his intention in any way. For those who have uncertainties the article offers an uncomfortable reality about the situation before the Book of Mormon's publication.

The more I read around the environment at the time, the more I question the Book of Mormon's historicity. I still find divinity in the published words - but I find uncertainty in its coming forth.

all i'll say is he is VERY well read, he knows what he is talking about-he is IMO one of the small group of people who should actually be teaching at BYU religious education! He got his Doctorate in American History and studied Mormon History and he got it from a Non Mormon University, Wayne State.

[Brant Gardner]

The more I read around the environment at the time, the more I question the Book of Mormon's historicity. I still find divinity in the published words - but I find uncertainty in its coming forth.

I think that the environment did more for people to accept the Book of Mormon than serve as a source for it. The kinds of similarities found in the environment mirror the worst of the methodology of parallels. They are easy to draw because they, but they don't hold up under examination. The Book of Mormon just isn't constructed to reflect the things noted in the environment in anything but a general way. That compares to very complex interactions with a historical context.

Perhaps I have not read as much about the environment during the time that Joseph was dictating the Book of Mormon, but I suspect that if I have not, I am not behind by much. I suspect that I have much more time in carefully studying the historical context. Comparing the two possible creation environments, ancient or modern, the ancient is by far the better case.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

From your post it would seem Mitchell would have had a pre-existing belief, which disturbed me a bit.

[canard78]

From your post it would seem Mitchell would have had a pre-existing belief, which disturbed me a bit.

Me too. I hope I've not spoiled your holiday season

[canard78]

I think that the environment did more for people to accept the Book of Mormon than serve as a source for it. The kinds of similarities found in the environment mirror the worst of the methodology of parallels. They are easy to draw because they, but they don't hold up under examination. The Book of Mormon just isn't constructed to reflect the things noted in the environment in anything but a general way. That compares to very complex interactions with a historical context.

Perhaps I have not read as much about the environment during the time that Joseph was dictating the Book of Mormon, but I suspect that if I have not, I am not behind by much. I suspect that I have much more time in carefully studying the historical context. Comparing the two possible creation environments, ancient or modern, the ancient is by far the better case.

I hope so. I want to meet a real Moroni/Nephi one day.

Having said that - if I take each contemporary piece in isolation I'd say 'that's only a little thing, that's only a small parallel.' But if I line them all up together, it's a pretty compelling case. If you read up on the cultural/religious environment in the late 18thC and early 19thC, they bear many parallels to the structure, ideas, foundational concepts in the Book of Mormon.

There are also some neat similarities to Mesoamerican/Old world behaviours. Essentially, both 'sides' are arguing the same thing. "Look at my evidence, they dismiss your coincidences." One 'side' has nothing more than a series of 'coincidences.' If Mitchill were the only 'coincidence' it would be relatively easy to dismiss, but it isn't.

Does it actually matter... if I still consider the contents of the book to be the keystone of [my] religion, and [that I] get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book, does it matter how it was written? It does a bit, but not entirely. Joseph could still be a prophet and deliver divinely inspired fiction. Or a collective group could have done the same.

My testimony of the Book of Mormon is based on two things: a question in prayer about whether the book is true/good/of God, to which I had a strong spiritual witness that it is. Second, through an Alma 32 style knowledge of the content, read and apply. Neither of those testimonies exclude the possibility that it was a 19thC creation. It could still be a 19thC creation full of 'true, good, divine' principles that bring me closer to Christ. Is that reasonable? Some would say not I guess.

On the other hand, as mentioned, it may be that those parallels were simply created and planned by God to allow the book to be published into a welcoming audience. But I still feel the issues themselves should be addressed, because not everyone can make that rationalisation.

[Storm Rider]

I have met real Moroni/Nephi type people. A few have been leaders of the Church, but the vast majority have not been in leadership positions of the Church of Jesus Christ. They have been individuals that have loved and served people without a great deal of notice or recognition from others, but they have served others with their whole heart. More importantly, I have found them in other churches and in other faiths. These are they that serve God with their whole heart, mind, and spirit. They have heard the gospel or parts of the gospel and have made it part of themselves. The Spirit permeates their being and they have submitted fully to the righteous pursuit of a true disciple. I apologize for going off topic, but it was just a knee-jerk thought process when I read Canard's first sentence above. I guess I am trying to keep my focus on all that God does in life and how so many other people are actively engaged in serving him.

[canard78]

I have met real Moroni/Nephi type people. A few have been leaders of the Church, but the vast majority have not been in leadership positions of the Church of Jesus Christ. They have been individuals that have loved and served people without a great deal of notice or recognition from others, but they have served others with their whole heart. More importantly, I have found them in other churches and in other faiths. These are they that serve God with their whole heart, mind, and spirit. They have heard the gospel or parts of the gospel and have made it part of themselves. The Spirit permeates their being and they have submitted fully to the righteous pursuit of a true disciple.

A very good point I guess I meant 'the' real Nephi/Moroni. But you message is fair and suggests the characteristics and character types in the Book of Mormon are probably more important than the actual characters.

I apologize for going off topic, but it was just a knee-jerk thought process when I read Canard's first sentence above. I guess I am trying to keep my focus on all that God does in life and how so many other people are actively engaged in serving him.

Do you mean by this that you worry less about origins and authorship of scripture and more about behavioural guidance in scripture? Are you at a stage where Anthon or Mitchill makes no difference to you?

[Brant Gardner]

Having said that - if I take each contemporary piece in isolation I'd say 'that's only a little thing, that's only a small parallel.' But if I line them all up together, it's a pretty compelling case. If you read up on the cultural/religious environment in the late 18thC and early 19thC, they bear many parallels to the structure, ideas, foundational concepts in the Book of Mormon.

I have done that. There are two types of correlations. The strongest one is that vocabulary common to the time shows up in the Book of Mormon. I think there is very good evidence for that. However, since the Book of Mormon only claims English as its language of translation, that doesn't say much. We know that Joseph lived in those times and to expect that his vocabulary and phraseology were unaffected by his surroundings is rather far-fetched. Because we are dealing with translation literature, examining it at the level of vocabulary can do little more than establish when it was translated, not written.

The other types of information are all interesting, but they don't line up. They are like correspondence lists. You can make a long list, but nothing in the list corresponds with anything else. In many cases, to suggest one influence on Joseph you have to deny another "parallel." They don't create any kind of compelling set. Parallels are simply too easily drawn. In this case, they are even more easily drawn because it is suggested that they don't even need to be parallel. Literary license is supposed to account for the differences. You are left with a pretty mushy methodology.

There are also some neat similarities to Mesoamerican/Old world behaviours.

More than some, and more than "neat." There are very specific complex connections between specific places and times, where only the conditions known for that place and time explain what is going on in the text. That not only happens once or twice, but consistently through the text. It would be perhaps impressive if there were only one or two, but the entire text fits pretty seemlessly into a known historical context. That is orders of magnitude more difficult that drawing the thin parallels that are used to place the origin of the text in modern times.

Essentially, both 'sides' are arguing the same thing. "Look at my evidence, they dismiss your coincidences." One 'side' has nothing more than a series of 'coincidences.'

I'm hoping to change that. I am almost finished with the manuscript (which means that it is still a year away, most likely). I discuss appropriate methodology, go through the text against history, and then compare the nature of that evidence to the nature of the parallels from the case(s) for a modern origin. Having been through the evidence, I can assure you that these two things are not the same.

The antidote to what one author called "the perils of parallels" is interlinked complexity. I judge against that method.

If Mitchill were the only 'coincidence' it would be relatively easy to dismiss, but it isn't.

Of course not. But notice what kind of coincidence Mitchill is. He has some ideas of the Book of Mormon that fit with what early LDS thought the Book of Mormon said. Perhaps that is not surprising as Mitchill's work might have fed that perception. However, what he suggested does not really describe the Book of Mormon and shows up only (and I repeat, only) in the perception of the text. The text itself if quite different.

So, we have a parallel that is parallel only if you look for the parallel in the wrong place.

Many of the others are of the same type. The "democracy" in the Book of Mormon is another, and easily mistaken. Richard Bushman thought to use the Book of Mormon to show democratic principles, but when he started really looking at the text he found that what he had assumed was there was not. The text was something else entirely.

Many of the modern "parallels" are to perceptions of the text rather than to what the text actually says .

Does it actually matter... if I still consider the contents of the book to be the keystone of [my] religion, and [that I] get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book, does it matter how it was written? It does a bit, but not entirely. Joseph could still be a prophet and deliver divinely inspired fiction. Or a collective group could have done the same.

Faith matters. Understanding a religious text in its proper context helps us understand the text and can enrich our faith. I understand the Bible much better now that I have some better background in it. I understand the Book of Mormon much better with the historical background than without it.

History doesn't supplant the need for faith, but it can deepen and enrich it.

My testimony of the Book of Mormon is based on two things: a question in prayer about whether the book is true/good/of God, to which I had a strong spiritual witness that it is. Second, through an Alma 32 style knowledge of the content, read and apply. Neither of those testimonies exclude the possibility that it was a 19thC creation. It could still be a 19thC creation full of 'true, good, divine' principles that bring me closer to Christ. Is that reasonable? Some would say not I guess.

I applaud your faith in the face of questions. I would encourage you not to give up on the questions quite yet. You are too willing to accept arguments that are not as strong as you seem to think they are. I don't know what you know of the historical context for the Book of Mormon, but it is really quite remarkable (and much of it not available to any researcher until the last perhaps 20-30 years).

On the other hand, as mentioned, it may be that those parallels were simply created and planned by God to allow the book to be published into a welcoming audience. But I still feel the issues themselves should be addressed, because not everyone can make that rationalisation.

I don't see God planning deceptions. From the conversion stories I have read, they believed first and searched for support in history after.

[Tacenda]

I hope so. I want to meet a real Moroni/Nephi one day.

Having said that - if I take each contemporary piece in isolation I'd say 'that's only a little thing, that's only a small parallel.' But if I line them all up together, it's a pretty compelling case. If you read up on the cultural/religious environment in the late 18thC and early 19thC, they bear many parallels to the structure, ideas, foundational concepts in the Book of Mormon.

There are also some neat similarities to Mesoamerican/Old world behaviours. Essentially, both 'sides' are arguing the same thing. "Look at my evidence, they dismiss your coincidences." One 'side' has nothing more than a series of 'coincidences.' If Mitchill were the only 'coincidence' it would be relatively easy to dismiss, but it isn't.

Does it actually matter... if I still consider the contents of the book to be the keystone of [my] religion, and [that I] get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book, does it matter how it was written? It does a bit, but not entirely. Joseph could still be a prophet and deliver divinely inspired fiction. Or a collective group could have done the same.

My testimony of the Book of Mormon is based on two things: a question in prayer about whether the book is true/good/of God, to which I had a strong spiritual witness that it is. Second, through an Alma 32 style knowledge of the content, read and apply. Neither of those testimonies exclude the possibility that it was a 19thC creation. It could still be a 19thC creation full of 'true, good, divine' principles that bring me closer to Christ. Is that reasonable? Some would say not I guess.

On the other hand, as mentioned, it may be that those parallels were simply created and planned by God to allow the book to be published into a welcoming audience. But I still feel the issues themselves should be addressed, because not everyone can make that rationalisation.

I relate to most of this.

[Tacenda]

I have done that. There are two types of correlations. The strongest one is that vocabulary common to the time shows up in the Book of Mormon. I think there is very good evidence for that. However, since the Book of Mormon only claims English as its language of translation, that doesn't say much. We know that Joseph lived in those times and to expect that his vocabulary and phraseology were unaffected by his surroundings is rather far-fetched. Because we are dealing with translation literature, examining it at the level of vocabulary can do little more than establish when it was translated, not written.

The other types of information are all interesting, but they don't line up. They are like correspondence lists. You can make a long list, but nothing in the list corresponds with anything else. In many cases, to suggest one influence on Joseph you have to deny another "parallel." They don't create any kind of compelling set. Parallels are simply too easily drawn. In this case, they are even more easily drawn because it is suggested that they don't even need to be parallel. Literary license is supposed to account for the differences. You are left with a pretty mushy methodology.

More than some, and more than "neat." There are very specific complex connections between specific places and times, where only the conditions known for that place and time explain what is going on in the text. That not only happens once or twice, but consistently through the text. It would be perhaps impressive if there were only one or two, but the entire text fits pretty seemlessly into a known historical context. That is orders of magnitude more difficult that drawing the thin parallels that are used to place the origin of the text in modern times.

I'm hoping to change that. I am almost finished with the manuscript (which means that it is still a year away, most likely). I discuss appropriate methodology, go through the text against history, and then compare the nature of that evidence to the nature of the parallels from the case(s) for a modern origin. Having been through the evidence, I can assure you that these two things are not the same.

The antidote to what one author called "the perils of parallels" is interlinked complexity. I judge against that method.

Of course not. But notice what kind of coincidence Mitchill is. He has some ideas of the Book of Mormon that fit with what early LDS thought the Book of Mormon said. Perhaps that is not surprising as Mitchill's work might have fed that perception. However, what he suggested does not really describe the Book of Mormon and shows up only (and I repeat, only) in the perception of the text. The text itself if quite different.

So, we have a parallel that is parallel only if you look for the parallel in the wrong place.

Many of the others are of the same type. The "democracy" in the Book of Mormon is another, and easily mistaken. Richard Bushman thought to use the Book of Mormon to show democratic principles, but when he started really looking at the text he found that what he had assumed was there was not. The text was something else entirely.

Many of the modern "parallels" are to perceptions of the text rather than to what the text actually says .

Faith matters. Understanding a religious text in its proper context helps us understand the text and can enrich our faith. I understand the Bible much better now that I have some better background in it. I understand the Book of Mormon much better with the historical background than without it.

History doesn't supplant the need for faith, but it can deepen and enrich it.

I applaud your faith in the face of questions. I would encourage you not to give up on the questions quite yet. You are too willing to accept arguments that are not as strong as you seem to think they are. I don't know what you know of the historical context for the Book of Mormon, but it is really quite remarkable (and much of it not available to any researcher until the last perhaps 20-30 years).

I don't see God planning deceptions. From the conversion stories I have read, they believed first and searched for support in history after.

I appreciate this response to Canard and leaving open the door to the possibility that the BoM is factual and not inspired only.

[mapman]

I've wondered if Mitchell's ideas via Martin Harris directly influenced the way that early Mormons read the Book of Mormon, such as assuming it took place in the US. The actual text of the BoM has some similarities to Mitchell's ideas, but I don't think that there is enough evidence to show that it derived from this tradition. I believe that the Book of Mormon is an ancient and inspired text, but I'm open to the translation having some influences from the 19th century.

Edited December 23, 2012 by mapman

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Me too. I hope I've not spoiled your holiday season

My son will be home soon from his mission...nothing can spoil it.

[volgadon]

My son will be home soon from his mission...nothing can spoil it.

He will be calling home for Christmas, too, right?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

He will be calling home for Christmas, too, right?

yes...and then home 3 weeks later.

[blackstrap]

yes...and then home 3 weeks later.

Time flies.Seems like only a couple months ago you were telling us about his call.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Time flies.Seems like only a couple months ago you were telling us about his call.

It does indeed, we are excited. It feels the same for me, it feels like I took him to the airport just a couple of weeks ago. I wish I could find my letter I posted here just before he left.

[cdowis]

"Parallelism"

I have demonstrated several times that the BOM was written within the past 30 years, if you subscribe to this theory of the origin of the BOM.

We have clear indications in the BOM:

1. the Taliban -- a group that has a standing army and using guerilla tactics, living in the mountains;

2. the Mafia-- with their blood oaths, a secret combination.

The BOM clearly describes these groups.

Now, please show us how the Masons compare to the "secret combinations" that we find in the BOM. Using this theory of parallelism ("the BOM was clearly written in the 19th century"), the BOM was clearly written very recently.

[canard78]

"Parallelism"

I have demonstrated several times that the BOM was written within the past 30 years, if you subscribe to this theory of the origin of the BOM.

We have clear indications in the BOM:

1. the Taliban -- a group that has a standing army and using guerilla tactics, living in the mountains;

2. the Mafia-- with their blood oaths, a secret combination.

The BOM clearly describes these groups.

Now, please show us how the Masons compare to the "secret combinations" that we find in the BOM. Using this theory of parallelism ("the BOM was clearly written in the 19th century"), the BOM was clearly written very recently.

I didn't mention masons. And I think there are stronger 19thC links than between the gadiantons and masons/taliban/mafia. Having said that, the fact that you're able to show parallels to one (clearly unconnected) circumstance should teach us to use caution when finding links to mesoamerican ones.

On another note, given I'd quoted you about believing Harris vs Anthon because the BoM investment must have needed someone to say something, does the knowledge that it was also (only?) the Mitchill experience that convinced Harris change your 'CSI approach' to the Anthon arguement?

[cdowis]

I didn't mention masons. And I think there are stronger 19thC links than between the gadiantons and masons/taliban/mafia. Having said that, the fact that you're able to show parallels to one (clearly unconnected) circumstance should teach us to use caution when finding links to mesoamerican ones.

On another note, given I'd quoted you about believing Harris vs Anthon because the BoM investment must have needed someone to say something, does the knowledge that it was also (only?) the Mitchill experience that convinced Harris change your 'CSI approach' to the Anthon arguement?

I see no relationship between the Masons and the gadianton robbers-- no standing army, they had no forceful assumption of power, did not leave the cities to hide in the wilderness. This is just a dream of the critics, who get all excited when the word "combination" is used in connection with the masons.

Regarding Harris and Anton. Harris was looking for some evidence that his loan was based on reality. When Anton found out what was going on, he was playing at protecting his reputation. I see no particular reason for Harris to lie, since he was satisfied enough to obtain a loan on his farm, but I see alot of motivation for Anton to cover up the details of his role in this "sordid" affair. How embarrasing to to give any creedence to a fake prophet, and he would have lost credibility in the social and scholastic community.

To be fair, I feel sympathy for him, and he should had asked more questions before giving his the certificate. It was only after giving Harris the paper that he started to look into what he had done. Significantly, Anton later contradicted himself on this point. In the first account, of course he refused to give Harris anything in writing, and in the second he admitted actually giving him some sort of a written statement. I personally find Harris the more credible witness, and he was willing to put up the money based on his experience. Anton had good reason to "modify" his account on what had happened.

[CA Steve]

Did Harris visit Mitchill before he went to Anthon?

[canard78]

I see no relationship between the Masons and the gadianton robbers-- no standing army, they had no forceful assumption of power, did not leave the cities to hide in the wilderness. This is just a dream of the critics, who get all excited when the word "combination" is used in connection with the masons.

Regarding Harris and Anton. Harris was looking for some evidence that his loan was based on reality. When Anton found out what was going on, he was playing at protecting his reputation. I see no particular reason for Harris to lie, since he was satisfied enough to obtain a loan on his farm, but I see alot of motivation for Anton to cover up the details of his role in this "sordid" affair. How embarrasing to to give any creedence to a fake prophet, and he would have lost credibility in the social and scholastic community.

To be fair, I feel sympathy for him, and he should had asked more questions before giving his the certificate. It was only after giving Harris the paper that he started to look into what he had done. Significantly, Anton later contradicted himself on this point. In the first account, of course he refused to give Harris anything in writing, and in the second he admitted actually giving him some sort of a written statement. I personally find Harris the more credible witness, and he was willing to put up the money based on his experience. Anton had good reason to "modify" his account on what had happened.

Sorry, to clarify, I see little to no parallel between Masons and Gadiantons either. I was just saying there are other, stronger parallels than Gadianton to Taliban/Mafia (which I realise you were just using to illustrate the risk of parallels).

Regarding Anthon, you may have missed my point. The evidence that Mitchill convinced Harris undermines the argument that we have to believe Harris vs Anthon because Harris went on to invest after his trip.

And now I really must go to christmas eve dinner.

[canard78]

I have done that. There are two types of correlations. The strongest one is that vocabulary common to the time shows up in the Book of Mormon. I think there is very good evidence for that. However, since the Book of Mormon only claims English as its language of translation, that doesn't say much. We know that Joseph lived in those times and to expect that his vocabulary and phraseology were unaffected by his surroundings is rather far-fetched. Because we are dealing with translation literature, examining it at the level of vocabulary can do little more than establish when it was translated, not written.

The other types of information are all interesting, but they don't line up. They are like correspondence lists. You can make a long list, but nothing in the list corresponds with anything else. In many cases, to suggest one influence on Joseph you have to deny another "parallel." They don't create any kind of compelling set. Parallels are simply too easily drawn. In this case, they are even more easily drawn because it is suggested that they don't even need to be parallel. Literary license is supposed to account for the differences. You are left with a pretty mushy methodology.

More than some, and more than "neat." There are very specific complex connections between specific places and times, where only the conditions known for that place and time explain what is going on in the text. That not only happens once or twice, but consistently through the text. It would be perhaps impressive if there were only one or two, but the entire text fits pretty seemlessly into a known historical context. That is orders of magnitude more difficult that drawing the thin parallels that are used to place the origin of the text in modern times.

I'm hoping to change that. I am almost finished with the manuscript (which means that it is still a year away, most likely). I discuss appropriate methodology, go through the text against history, and then compare the nature of that evidence to the nature of the parallels from the case(s) for a modern origin. Having been through the evidence, I can assure you that these two things are not the same.

The antidote to what one author called "the perils of parallels" is interlinked complexity. I judge against that method.

Of course not. But notice what kind of coincidence Mitchill is. He has some ideas of the Book of Mormon that fit with what early LDS thought the Book of Mormon said. Perhaps that is not surprising as Mitchill's work might have fed that perception. However, what he suggested does not really describe the Book of Mormon and shows up only (and I repeat, only) in the perception of the text. The text itself if quite different.

So, we have a parallel that is parallel only if you look for the parallel in the wrong place.

Many of the others are of the same type. The "democracy" in the Book of Mormon is another, and easily mistaken. Richard Bushman thought to use the Book of Mormon to show democratic principles, but when he started really looking at the text he found that what he had assumed was there was not. The text was something else entirely.

Many of the modern "parallels" are to perceptions of the text rather than to what the text actually says .

Faith matters. Understanding a religious text in its proper context helps us understand the text and can enrich our faith. I understand the Bible much better now that I have some better background in it. I understand the Book of Mormon much better with the historical background than without it.

History doesn't supplant the need for faith, but it can deepen and enrich it.

I applaud your faith in the face of questions. I would encourage you not to give up on the questions quite yet. You are too willing to accept arguments that are not as strong as you seem to think they are. I don't know what you know of the historical context for the Book of Mormon, but it is really quite remarkable (and much of it not available to any researcher until the last perhaps 20-30 years).

I don't see God planning deceptions. From the conversion stories I have read, they believed first and searched for support in history after.

Many thanks for your detailed response. I want to reply properly to this, but am enjoying time with family. I will though later in the week.