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

[cdowis]

Did Harris visit Mitchill before he went to Anthon?

Harris first visited Anthon and then Mitchell.

[CA Steve]

Harris first visited Anthon and then Mitchell.

Previous to this thread that is the order I understood also.

I ask now because in Richard Bennett's JMH paper he mentions an account by Anthon that "Harris first visited Mitchill, who wrote him a letter referring him to Anthon." After visiting Anthon "Harris promptly left and went back to Mitchill who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation."

[Nevo]

The entire text [of the Book of Mormon] fits pretty seamlessly 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.

____________________

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

I look forward to your forthcoming book where you lay out the case for Book of Mormon historicity. But I am a bit surprised to see you here and in other recent threads as essentially claiming that the evidences for an ancient origin are numerous and compelling (manifesting "interlinked complexity") while the evidences for a modern origin are "thin" and superficial, based largely on misperceptions of the text.

To me, the Book of Mormon is glaringly anachronistic, and not just at the level of language. It is only by an act of imagination that I can read it as ancient pre-Columbian literature. It is unmistakably a Christian scripture—one that interacts with centuries of Christian thought and practice. The Book of Mormon's teachings about God, the Plan of Salvation, the Fall, Satan, sin, the Atonement, the afterlife, the Christian sacraments, church offices, etc., are not only post-Exilic but post-Reformation. I hope your book with disabuse me of these (mis)perceptions, but I don't think these anachronism are easily answered. Not from an appeal to historical evidence anyway.

[Brant Gardner]

I look forward to your forthcoming book where you lay out the case for Book of Mormon historicity. But I am a bit surprised to see you here and in other recent threads as essentially claiming that the evidences for an ancient origin are numerous and compelling (manifesting "interlinked complexity") while the evidences for a modern origin are "thin" and superficial, based largely on misperceptions of the text.

To me, the Book of Mormon is glaringly anachronistic, and not just at the level of language. It is only by an act of imagination that I can read it as ancient pre-Columbian literature. It is unmistakably a Christian scripture—one that interacts with centuries of Christian thought and practice. The Book of Mormon's teachings about God, the Plan of Salvation, the Fall, Satan, sin, the Atonement, the afterlife, the Christian sacraments, church offices, etc., are not only post-Exilic but post-Reformation. I hope your book with disabuse me of these (mis)perceptions, but I don't think these anachronism are easily answered. Not from an appeal to historical evidence anyway.

In many cases, it is a question of peering through the vocabulary of the translation. We see the text as Christian because it speaks of Christ. While that allows us to read into the text all of our understanding, we don't get as much from the text itself. For example, what we have is an explicit emphasis on the atoning mission of Christ where the early Christian message was resurrection. There are pre-exilic reasons for that emphasis.

You can get certain church offices because the names are similar, but tracing the functions is more difficult. It is very difficult in the text to know how to separate a teacher and a priest, and neither follows any biblical (or Reformation) designation.

I find it much easier to explain many of these apparent anachronisms than I can explain the historical information from the perspective of a modern text.

[Nevo]

We see the text as Christian because it speaks of Christ. While that allows us to read into the text all of our understanding, we don't get as much from the text itself.

I don't agree but I look forward to reading your book.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Nevo

[Brant Gardner]

I don't agree but I look forward to reading your book.

I confess that I didn't look at theological reason to view it as modern. However, there are a lot of issues that appear a certain way because we are conditioned to see them that way. One is the democratic/republican government in the Book of Mormon. Lots of authors assume that and promote it. It isn't actually there.

The question of what modalism in the Book of Mormon is also a modern misreading of what the text's information tells us about what Nephites believed. Other than the vocabulary, the baptism in Nephi isn't that different from a mikvah. It appropriately misses any references to the NT analogy to death and resurrection.

[cdowis]

To me, the Book of Mormon is glaringly anachronistic, and not just at the level of language. It is only by an act of imagination that I can read it as ancient pre-Columbian literature. It is unmistakably a Christian scripture—one that interacts with centuries of Christian thought and practice. The Book of Mormon's teachings about God, the Plan of Salvation, the Fall, Satan, sin, the Atonement, the afterlife, the Christian sacraments, church offices, etc., are not only post-Exilic but post-Reformation. I hope your book with disabuse me of these (mis)perceptions, but I don't think these anachronism are easily answered. Not from an appeal to historical evidence anyway.

The Jews edited those concepts out of their scriptures, such as that Christ would be a Nazarine. There are references to entire books which are missing from the Hebrew scriptures, When Christ asked where John got the authority to baptize, it was evident that baptism was recognized as a ordinance by the Pharasees as well as the Jews in general.

Instead of the BOM being "too Christian", the OT is "not Christian enough." Many plain and precious things were removed.

You got it backwards.

Edited January 4, 2013 by cdowis

[DBMormon]

For the record, I am unsure if this has been mentioned yet but Anthon's own statements conflict in such a way that when I read them I get the sense he is dishonest about what happened between him and Harris to save his credibility....... please don't make a comparison between this and the FV accounts.... completely different situations and please read anthon accounts to see what I am talking about.

[canard78]

I don't agree but I look forward to reading your book.

Your first unedited reply was better

[canard78]

For the record, I am unsure if this has been mentioned yet but Anthon's own statements conflict in such a way that when I read them I get the sense he is dishonest about what happened between him and Harris to save his credibility....... please don't make a comparison between this and the FV accounts.... completely different situations and please read anthon accounts to see what I am talking about.

Firstly we allow Joseph to get his age completely wrong and excuse him due to the ravages of time.

Second, we complain that two similar letters from Anthon put the details out of sequence to each other. Paul's vision accounts got the sequencing wrong too, but we don't call him a liar.

In his lecture (link in the OP), I think Bennett points out that Anthon couldn't have done and said everything we think he did, he just didn't have the training.

The point is we always say "Anthon must be the liar because why else would Harris have invested in the Book of Mormon."

The Mitchill evidence challenges that line of thinking:

- After seeing Anthon, Harris sought additional feedback. One might wonder why more proof was needed if Anthon had already convinced him.

- Bennett shows that Mitchill gave far more convincing statements to Harris. Statements Harris later reused when trying to convince someone else to lend money to the venture (and not Anthon's)

I'm not calling Harris a liar. But he may 'over-stated' what Anthon told him.

[Nevo]

I confess that I didn't look at theological reason to view it as modern. However, there are a lot of issues that appear a certain way because we are conditioned to see them that way. One is the democratic/republican government in the Book of Mormon. Lots of authors assume that and promote it. It isn't actually there.

I agree that democratic/republican government isn't in the Book of Mormon. However, "republicanism" (the ideology) is. But I see from this four-year-old thread that we're both repeating ourselves. I guess I've grown older, but not wiser

[CA Steve]

For the record, I am unsure if this has been mentioned yet but Anthon's own statements conflict in such a way that when I read them I get the sense he is dishonest about what happened between him and Harris to save his credibility....... please don't make a comparison between this and the FV accounts.... completely different situations and please read anthon accounts to see what I am talking about.

Do Anthon's conflicting accounts mean Harris was telling the truth?

If Harris returned to Mitchill after his Anthon visit, wouldn't that indicate that Harris valued Mitchill's opinion more than Anthon's?

[Mark Beesley]

And when you shall receive these things, if it be wisdom in God that you receive them, then I would exhort you to ask God in the name of Christ if these things are not true. And if you shall ask with a sincere heart, having faith in Christ, and explore each and every archaeological evidence touching on these things, and study all possible historical alternatives to the story contained herein, and make a multitude of considered assumptions and reach plausible conclusions about the coming forth of this book, then you can forget about asking God if these things are true because you will have shown that you are much smarter than God and don't need to rely on faith for nuthin' . . .

Very truly yours,

Faux Moroni

Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God and he did not lie about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

[Nevo]

Your first unedited reply was better

I removed my original comment because I had second thoughts about the propriety of expressing on a public message board private doubts about Book of Mormon historicity given the covenants I've made and my present calling. (I would have removed my previous comment too but it was already embedded in Brant's reply). However, after perusing the board archives, I see I've already been an outspoken critic...so I guess the damage is done.

[canard78]

Do Anthon's conflicting accounts mean Harris was telling the truth?

If Harris returned to Mitchill after his Anthon visit, wouldn't that indicate that Harris valued Mitchill's opinion more than Anthon's?

Exactly. I said something similar, but you did the same, just more succinctly.

Edited January 4, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

I removed my original comment because I had second thoughts about the propriety of expressing on a public message board private doubts about Book of Mormon historicity given the covenants I've made and my present calling. (I would have removed my previous comment too but it was already embedded in Brant's reply). However, after perusing the board archives, I see I've already been an outspoken critic...so I guess the damage is done.

Is an expression of doubt a broken covenant? Do we have to take the BoM as biographical to be a member in good standing?

[Nevo]

Is an expression of doubt a broken covenant? Do we have to take the BoM as biographical to be a member in good standing?

Well, in my case, I think my expressions of doubt were starting to look a bit too much like advocacy of a non-historical Book of Mormon. I think my job as a member of the Church is to be loyal, to promote the welfare of both the institution and its members—so I should probably be more circumspect in such matters.

[Brant Gardner]

Well, in my case, I think my expressions of doubt were starting to look a bit too much like advocacy of a non-historical Book of Mormon. I think my job as a member of the Church is to be loyal, to promote the welfare of both the institution and its members—so I should probably be more circumspect in such matters.

Perhaps there are other venues for asking hard questions, but I don't know what they are. I certainly hope that people aren't judged by asking hard questions. B. H. Roberts did. I don't think you haves asked any harder questions than he has.

I am impressed that you remembered enough about the old thread to even look. I didn't.

[cdowis]

Firstly we allow Joseph to get his age completely wrong and excuse him due to the ravages of time.

I am 14 years old, and I am in my 15th year are the same thing.

Second, we complain that two similar letters from Anthon put the details out of sequence to each other. Paul's vision accounts got the sequencing wrong too, but we don't call him a liar.

Do you understand the difference in motivation between these two individuals? I do.

In his lecture (link in the OP), I think Bennett points out that Anthon couldn't have done and said everything we think he did, he just didn't have the training.

And that is a very naive view of how a bolated ego can go far beyond one's training and knowledge when trying to impress a local yokel. In this case Anthon assumed (wrongly) that a scholar had validated the translation, and he was just blustering.

The point is we always say "Anthon must be the liar because why else would Harris have invested in the Book of Mormon."

The Mitchill evidence challenges that line of thinking:

- After seeing Anthon, Harris sought additional feedback. One might wonder why more proof was needed if Anthon had already convinced him.

I don't wonder. He was placing his farm at risk and wanted to be cautious. He was already in NY, so why not take advantage of multiple visits. He was very concerned about falling into a trap. I see no motivation for lying here, but strong motive to reassure himself that he was making a wise decision.

- Bennett shows that Mitchill gave far more convincing statements to Harris. Statements Harris later reused when trying to convince someone else to lend money to the venture (and not Anthon's)

I see Anthon with a strong motivation to protect his reputation, instead of looking like a fool in the scholastic world. I see relatively little motivation for Harris.

I just don't follow your logic.

I'm not calling Harris a liar. But he may 'over-stated' what Anthon told him.

The issue for me is whether Anthon was desperately trying to protection himself. Again, Harris had little motivation to do so. Harris sounds truthful, Anthon does not, especially with his "revised" tale regarding the written statement.

Edited January 4, 2013 by cdowis

[T-Shirt]

I have a question, to which I am not certain of the answer. At the time of Harris' trip to New York, had there even been any discussion of him financing the project? The agreement with Grandin didn't come until more than a year later, and Harris didn't actually sell part of his farm and make the final payment until 1832, which was after he had become one of the Three Witnesses. I don't know at what time time Harris was asked to back the printing of the book of Mormon. I do know, however, that initially, Harris was only expected to be the security for the project, thinking that the sale of the book would easily cover the cost to the printer, and Harris would not have to spend a dime. It wasn't until after a pre-sale of the book, an attempt to sell the copyright in Canada and the actual selling of the book after the printing was completed, all proved to be unsuccessful that it became necessary for Harris to sell part of his farm and pay any money.

Edited January 4, 2013 by T-Shirt

[cdowis]

Church history is not my forte, so some of my comments may have been based on a faulty assumption. Are you asking whether Harris had no financial interest in the publication of the BOM while he was visiting NY? That his visit was motivated by.... what?

[CA Steve]

Church history is not my forte, so some of my comments may have been based on a faulty assumption. Are you asking whether Harris had no financial interest in the publication of the BOM while he was visiting NY? That his visit was motivated by.... what?

Religion- below is a summary of his religious affiliations from an article by H. Michael Marquardt "Martin Harris: The Kirtland Years, 1831-1870.

Throughout his life he flitted from one group to another, mostly aligning himself with apostate members or groups that considered the Book of Mormon scripture, though in 1844ish he attached himself to Shakerism going so far as to declare that he had as much evidence for a Shaker book as he had for the Book of Mormon.

After his 1837 excommunication he joined with the Kirtland dissenters to form the "Church of Christ". He was back into the Church by 1840 but by 1843 had aligned himself with the Shakers. After Joseph Smith's death Harris was undecided about who to follow and changed his loyalty several times.

In 1846 along with William Smith he accepted James Strang as church president and even served a brief mission to England for Strang. In 1847 he was back in Kirtland along with W.E. McLellin setting up a the "Church of Christ" again with D Whitmer as president. He became one of 3 witnesses to David Whitmer as a successor to Joseph Smith. In 1851 he was once again a witness to another prophet, seer & revelator by the name of Gladden Bishop who claimed to have in his possession the gold plates and other relics of early Mormonism.

In 1855 he published a proclamation by a Cleveland medium purporting to be given by Moses, Elias, Elijah and John, a copy of which he sent to Brigham Young. In 1857 he started another church with William Smith. That union lasted all of six days before "Harris drove Smith out of the place and dammed him to Hell".

Marquardt concludes with:

"Martin Harris was associated with a number of churches throughout his Kirtland years. He always maintained a belief in the organizations he joined, but he was apparently unstable in his religious ideals. He was influenced by James J. Strang, William E. McLellin, and others. He accepted a number of prophetic leaders after the death of Joseph Smith, and like many spiritual gypsies, he wanted a place where he would be important. Martin followed or believed in James J. Strang, David Whitmer, Gladden Bishop, and William Smith as prophets, seers and revelators, but in all these religious movements, he never denied any of his experiences".

Edited January 5, 2013 by CA Steve

[canard78]

I was thinking about what my objective of this thread is. It's not to prove Harris a liar so first, thanks for pointing the overly supportive tone of Anthon. It's not the intention and I appreciate your correction. I'll bear that in mind.

What I'm trying to do is explore and challenge the easy presumption that Harris' confidence fully hangs on Anthon's statements. Mitchill's recorded statement is equally important and perhaps more so.

Firstly we allow Joseph to get his age completely wrong and excuse him due to the ravages of time.

I am 14 years old, and I am in my 15th year are the same thing.

But that's not what he said.

- 1832 account: "while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord in the 16th year of my age" (in Joseph's own handwriting)

- 1835 (and subsequent) accounts: "when I was about fourteen years old"

(there's also the age uncertainty by Oliver from 15th year to 17th year in Messenger and Advocate in 1834)

I don't read these and suggest he's a liar. I'm just showing that sometimes people mix up details when recounting an experience multiple time to different people.

Second, we complain that two similar letters from Anthon put the details out of sequence to each other. Paul's vision accounts got the sequencing wrong too, but we don't call him a liar.

Do you understand the difference in motivation between these two individuals? I do.

I can understand Anthon's desire to defend his reputation. The point I'm making is that the conflicting accounts on their own are not enough to call Anthon a liar.

In his lecture (link in the OP), I think Bennett points out that Anthon couldn't have done and said everything we think he did, he just didn't have the training.

And that is a very naive view of how a bolated ego can go far beyond one's training and knowledge when trying to impress a local yokel. In this case Anthon assumed (wrongly) that a scholar had validated the translation, and he was just blustering.

That's a fair point. Anthon could have just invented an endorsement. But it would have been fairly meaningless. It's a slightly different tone to the church history institute manual's take on it: "This was Professor Charles Anthon of Columbia College in New York City, who was perhaps the most qualified of Martin’s contacts to judge the characters on the document."

The way it's taught to members is "A qualified scholar endorsed the translation into Egyptian, but then ripped up the certificate because he was worried about his reputation."

No-where does it say "Anthon endorsed the translation, but he was blustering as there's no way he could have accurately checked the translation into Egyptian."

Wouldn't the second be more accurate? Or as Bennett puts it: "...at the time of Harris’s visit in 1828 Anthon was but an adjunct professor of Greek and Latin—more an accomplished grammarian than a prestigious scholar... While he had superb mastery of Greek, Latin, German, and French, there is little indication that he knew much about Egyptian, Hebrew, or any other Middle Eastern language. But because of his love of languages, he was probably aware of emerging research interests in Egyptian hieroglyphics and knew that Champollion had recently deciphered the ancient Egyptian writings on the Rosetta Stone."

The recounting of the story also often gets very excited about how Anthon fulfills the prophesy of Isaiah, but Harris put words in his mouth.

Anthon: "I'd like to see the plates for myself"

Harris: "I can't bring them to you, they are sealed"

Anthon: "I can't read a sealed book"

How else is Anthon supposed to answer? I'm not saying Harris did it intentionally, but Anthon couldn't have said much else.

The point is we always say "Anthon must be the liar because why else would Harris have invested in the Book of Mormon."

The Mitchill evidence challenges that line of thinking:

- After seeing Anthon, Harris sought additional feedback. One might wonder why more proof was needed if Anthon had already convinced him.

I don't wonder. He was placing his farm at risk and wanted to be cautious. He was already in NY, so why not take advantage of multiple visits. He was very concerned about falling into a trap. I see no motivation for lying here, but strong motive to reassure himself that he was making a wise decision.

- Bennett shows that Mitchill gave far more convincing statements to Harris. Statements Harris later reused when trying to convince someone else to lend money to the venture (and not Anthon's)

I see Anthon with a strong motivation to protect his reputation, instead of looking like a fool in the scholastic world. I see relatively little motivation for Harris.

I just don't follow your logic.

I'm not calling Harris a liar. But he may 'over-stated' what Anthon told him.

The issue for me is whether Anthon was desperately trying to protection himself. Again, Harris had little motivation to do so. Harris sounds truthful, Anthon does not, especially with his "revised" tale regarding the written statement.

I agree that Anthon may have been trying to protect himself and has the motivation to do so. The point of the new Mitchill evidence is that it's not as straightforward to make the leap and presumption that Anthon's statement is the only thing that convinced Harris.

Do you think Mitchill's contribution to convincing Harris should be made more clear in church history? For example:

"Some years later when he was approached by an avowed detractor of Joseph Smith, Professor Anthon denied ever having commented with favor upon the characters or the translation. Yet the fact remains that Martin Harris was so impressed by the experience that he returned to Joseph Smith and then immediately proceeded to Palmyra to put his affairs in order so that he might assist with the translation."

http://www.lds.org/manual/truth-restored/chapter-2-an-angel-and-a-book - "Chapter 2: An Angel and A Book," Truth Restored, (2001)

Where's the Mitchill contribution in this account? Is it missing because they didn't know about it in 2001 (probably not)? When they reprint will they update it to show the Mitchill account and evidence too?

My point is that even if Harris' account of his meeting of Anthon is accurate (and I agree that I've been too quick to dismiss it) we over-simplify the telling off the whole Anthon-Harris story when a) Anthon's not a credible endorser of the translation so that shouldn't be given so much credence in the account when we tell it today and b) Mitchill should be in the story too. If they did however, members could find the full extent of Mitchill's beliefs quite uncomfortable.

Bennett puts it far more eloquently than I and without the concern for the 'Mitchill implication':

"We may never know the full extent of the conversations Martin Harris had with Luther Bradish, Samuel Mitchill, or Charles Anthon that winter of 1828. While it is probably safe to say that the discussions between Harris and Anthon will ever prove more popular among Latter-day Saint readers as a fulfillment of prophecy, the fact remains that Harris found encouragement to pursue his sponsorship of the Book of Mormon not only from Anthon. It may well be that the secondary characters in this story—Luther Bradish and Samuel L. Mitchill—were far more important than we have previously supposed."

http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1903

[canard78]

Hi, sorry it took me so long to get back on this. I’ve been thinking further about what my objective was/is in discussing this issue.

As we face challenges from critics and help self or friends with shaken faith should we answer the criticism or offer a counter?

I’ve read a lot of fairmormon and appreciate it. But it seems to me that the style is often to counter a criticism rather than answer the criticism. There’s an example of a work-in-progress page answering the accusation of Methodist rhetoric in Benjamin’s speech here: http://en.fairmormon..._Book_of_Mormon

Instead of addressing the criticism, a counter is being worked on to show that King Benjamin is viable as a Mesoamerican king (Divine kingship etc). They've even got your very self in a video about the topic.

But at present (and I realise it's WIP) it doesn't answer whether or not the language Benjamin uses is 1800s Methodist language.

I'm raising a similar concern with how we should approach Mitchill’s background and teachings. We could either go into detail of answering why Mitchill couldn’t have been one of the influences on the Book of Mormon’s structural history and narrative. Or we can show how the Book of Mormon’s structural history and narratives fit a Mesoamerican history and wave the Mitchill criticism away without actually answering it.

Is it possible to first answer the criticism and then also build on it with a counter? Or do we have to admit that we sometimes can’t answer and can only counter?

Do we have the tendency to not engage with the evidences for authorship because we start with the bias that they must be false, because we have faith and testimony that it's not authored? Why bother addressing evidence against (that has to be incorrect, based on our position of approaching the history) and instead simply say “it’s true, and look at all the evidence we have on the other side?”

Given apologetics is also written for the investigator, doubter or non-believer this approach may not be enough. Do we risk patting each other’s backs, but not addressing the concern about viability of authorship?

Do we only say “it’s not viable because look at all our impressive evidences and parallels" and therefore have licence to ignore the evidence and parallels against that others consider strong enough to dismiss the book?

A few additional thoughts to your points made:

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.

I agree with this line of thinking - but doesn’t it presume a 'loose translation' rather than a 'tight' one... which then brings in to question the Hebraisms and particularly the strict structure of Chiasmus. Can we have it both ways? Did he switch between both? Or do we cite each when it suits the passage?

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.

The challenge we have in terms of sources and origins is we're arguing with critics on different methodologies. For an authorship theory to stand they don't need to find a perfect narrative in one single source. J.R.R. Tolkein is widely accepted to have been influenced by multiple ancient texts: the Finnish Kalevala; Anglo-Saxon Beowulf and Celtic Mabinogion amongst many others. These texts have only a little directly in common. Many of them don't fit together. Lots of the content in Hobbit/LOTR has no parallel ascribed to literary license. But it's not a mushy methodology to still list the influences on Tolkein's ideas.

I know there are obvious differences between the educational background of Joseph and Tolkein, but there are many other writers and artists where one can ascribe multiple influences that permeate their writing, music or art. People create from the influences around them, often unknowingly. JK Rowling said "I haven't got the faintest idea where my ideas come from, or how my imagination works. I'm just grateful that it does" That doesn’t mean that she has no influences, nor does it mean we can’t find parallels in her work to other materials, there are in many.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_influences_and_analogues

If we wanted to find contemporaneous sources that 'could have' inspired the structure, ideas, doctrines and finale of the Book of Mormon, there are plenty in print and in religious rhetoric in the 1800s that Joseph could have, indeed is known to have had access to. Add to this BH Roberts vision of his 'vivid imagination' and there is plausibility for authorship, but not proof.

My point of the above is not to try to prove Joseph as author. I consider the content of the Book of Mormon to be amazing. I personally don’t buy into an fraudulent authorship theory. But I can see how others consider plausible. It’s ‘the words’ and ‘the spirit’ that swing it away from authorship for me. Without confidence in the words, people would be more likely to accept or be concerned by authorship theories. As such I think it's worth tackling the authorship theories collectively and individually in order to help those who see it differently.

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.

I look forward to reading them further. I’m aware of some of them but perhaps not enough. I appreciate your willingness to discredit and debunk weak and (well-intentioned) misleading work in support of the BoM’s historicity (like this: http://www.fairlds.o...-to-be-true.pdf).

I can’t help but wonder whether the reason we get books like the ones you discuss/dismiss above and the reason we’re able to find so many parallels is because we want to find them. Equally we tend to dismiss consider the ‘anti-parallels’ because we don’t want to see them.

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 .

I agree that one’s position of approaching the Book of Mormon will always impact on how we perceive the contexts. A question about you saying: “He has some ideas of the Book of Mormon that fit with what early LDS thought the Book of Mormon said.” As I’m sure you’re aware… Mitchill got there first. The LDS thought nothing of what the BoM said because it wasn’t published yet. Joseph Smith and Harris hadn’t even started the 116 pages when he met with Mitchill. So a member of the publishing team had a meeting with a man teaching the idea of a fairer, educated nation being wiped out by the aggressive nation before they started transcribing. That alone can’t account for the Book of Mormon culminating stories. But an unbeliever could list it as one of several ideas and influences on the themes.

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.

Thanks for your positive words. You’ve been more than generous with your time.

I agree. People tend to get a testimony independent of the history, or even unaware of the history. Unfortunately some of the departure stories are the other way round. They believed first, then found difficult history, then stopped believing.

In tackling the problems specifically rather than generally we may be able to help some to continue believing. The answer for some isn't simply to 'have more faith.' Unfortunately the difficult history can cause some people to question whether the feelings they have been taught to attribute to the spirit really is that and not simply personal emotions.

I thank you again for your dedication to the cause of digging out these positive evidences that support faith.

Edited January 15, 2013 by canard78

[Brant Gardner]

I’ve read a lot of fairmormon and appreciate it. But it seems to me that the style is often to counter a criticism rather than answer the criticism. . . .

But at present (and I realise it's WIP) it doesn't answer whether or not the language Benjamin uses is 1800s Methodist language.

You are correct that this is a style. What I offer is my personal reaction, which is probably not shared by many.

I agree that this style is insufficient because it appears that the only response is some diversion from the question rather than a direct response to it. There is a style in LDS apologetics that rather immediately looks for the contradiction without understanding the nature of the argument. The reason, of course, is that all of these things get wrapped up in polemics, and everyone is talking to the larger (often only implied) argument about authenticity.

Thus a critic proposes Methodist language (because there is an implication that it shows that the text isn't divine) and the apologist responds with something that indicates that the text could be historical (and therefore still be divine).

The Methodist language is still there. That is a translation issue and the nature of the translation is still being worked out.

I'm raising a similar concern with how we should approach Mitchill’s background and teachings. We could either go into detail of answering why Mitchill couldn’t have been one of the influences on the Book of Mormon’s structural history and narrative. Or we can show how the Book of Mormon’s structural history and narratives fit a Mesoamerican history and wave the Mitchill criticism away without actually answering it.

Mitchill's ideas are very good reasons for the way the early Saints read the Book of Mormon against history, but the mechanism required to get those ideas fully formed in the text is too thin be have be any explanation for what is in the text. There is no indication that when Martin goes to him, Martin receives a history lecture that he then repeats to Joseph. What came of the trip was some recognition of the connection between Anthon's statement and Isaiah (perhaps first recognized by Martin). Nothing else seems to have been very interesting, or even the subject of discussion.

Is it possible to first answer the criticism and then also build on it with a counter? Or do we have to admit that we sometimes can’t answer and can only counter?

It is a question of style. Personally, I think there is much to be gained by engaging data instead of the underlying polemic over authenticity. My personal style attempts that (though I know that there has been at least one person criticize some of my work because I favorably cite evidence from critics).

I agree with this line of thinking - but doesn’t it presume a 'loose translation' rather than a 'tight' one... which then brings in to question the Hebraisms and particularly the strict structure of Chiasmus. Can we have it both ways? Did he switch between both? Or do we cite each when it suits the passage?

There is no way to cover all of this on a board, which is one of the reasons I wrote a book on the topic.The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon is available in hardback and electronic versions. I hesitate to offer a plug for a book, but I deal with those issues.

The quick answer is that we cannot have it both ways. We need to have an understanding of how the text was translated, and the best evidence that I have seen requires that some of the Hebraism arguments are untenable (David Bokovoy strongly disagrees with me, by the way).

The challenge we have in terms of sources and origins is we're arguing with critics on different methodologies. For an authorship theory to stand they don't need to find a perfect narrative in one single source.

Correct. However, such comparisons must explain the text better than alternatives. The problem with the attempts to find the influences that would generate the Book of Mormon is that most of them explain only a superficial and traditional reading of the text. When we read the text more carefully, there is much of the traditional reading that no longer fits.

What happens, in my opinion, is that the reading of the text was influenced by the kinds of things that people see as influences for the text. Thus, they see connections because they are seeing the result of someone else reading the text that way. It is the same process I have seen in the study of the Quetzalcoatl legends. "Everyone" knows that it means certain things, but only because they base their readings on sources that have already reinterpreted the text into a different form.

If we wanted to find contemporaneous sources that 'could have' inspired the structure, ideas, doctrines and finale of the Book of Mormon, there are plenty in print and in religious rhetoric in the 1800s that Joseph could have, indeed is known to have had access to. Add to this BH Roberts vision of his 'vivid imagination' and there is plausibility for authorship, but not proof.

One can make that argument. Many have. The problem is that it only engages the assumptions about the text and not the text. Take the example of the assumption of republican government. It has been traditional to see the shift from kingship to the rule of the judges as a parallel to American democracy. After all, they use "the voice of the people."

The problem is that this reading only works if you assume what the text says and don't read it closely. That is the problem with finding influences. Sometimes we find only the influence that created our assumption, not the text itself.

I can’t help but wonder whether the reason we get books like the ones you discuss/dismiss above and the reason we’re able to find so many parallels is because we want to find them. Equally we tend to dismiss consider the ‘anti-parallels’ because we don’t want to see them.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I neither dismiss them or don't want to see them. I think they have to be engaged. Having done so, I don't see them as viable.

I agree that one’s position of approaching the Book of Mormon will always impact on how we perceive the contexts. A question about you saying: “He has some ideas of the Book of Mormon that fit with what early LDS thought the Book of Mormon said.” As I’m sure you’re aware… Mitchill got there first.

What I am saying is that Mitchill did have those ideas first, and that those ideas may have influenced the way people read the Book of Mormon. Because the Book of Mormon doesn't actually follow Mitchill's ideas (the parallels are conceptual and only appear strong because of tradition, which was plausibly influenced by Mitchill's ideas), their precedence doesn't say anything about the Book of Mormon (only about those who read it).

So a member of the publishing team had a meeting with a man teaching the idea of a fairer, educated nation being wiped out by the aggressive nation before they started transcribing. That alone can’t account for the Book of Mormon culminating stories. But an unbeliever could list it as one of several ideas and influences on the themes.

The methodology of parallels is suspect because parallels exist completely at random. Depending upon how you draw and state them, many things can be made to appear similar. One of the most important tests of the parallels is to discern whether there could be an alternate explanation.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, the historical case is much stronger. Of course, that is an assertion on my part, but it is based on the evidence I have worked through comparing the Book of Mormon text to a historical background into which the text fits with greater ease than the modern parallels of influence that are suggested.