Book Of Mormon: New Evidence Of 19Th Century Origin

[The Grimace]

Folks - this is lighting up some LDS-related sites:

 

http://askreality.com/hidden-in-plain-sight/#more-56

 

Seems a cursory textual analysis of works published pre-1830 has yielded some clue as to books that influenced the BOM!

[jkwilliams]

Is this a smoking gun? Nope, but it does answer a couple of questions I've never sorted out:

 

1. Why did Joseph Smith mimic language of the KJV?

 

The author having adopted for the model of his style the phraseology of the best books, remarkable for its simplicity and strength, the young pupil will acquire, with the knowledge of reading, a love for the manner in which the great truths of Divine Revelation are conveyed to his understanding, and this will be an inducement to him to study the Holy Scriptures.

Mitchill says the same thing:

It seems to me one of the best attempts to imitate the biblical style; and if the perusal of it can induce young persons to relish and love the sacred books whose language you have imitated, it will be the strongest of all recommendations.

2. Why did Joseph Smith send Martin Harris to someone like Samuel Mitchill?

The endorsements are clearly Hunt's effort to give the book legitimacy, hence improving its marketability. Hunt is quite wise in getting the endorsement of Mitchill, who was well-known as a sort of human encyclopedia.  The endorsement from well-known educator J.W. Picket would get him into the school market, as well. Joseph Smith may have thought that such an endorsement from learned men like Mitchill and Anthon would legitimize the book.

Again, it doesn't prove anything, but it does show that the Book of Mormon fits right in with what was going on at the time. And it puts to rest the notion that "and it came to pass" is evidence of ancient Hebrew influence.

[Storm Rider]

You will see what you want to see.

[jkwilliams]

You will see what you want to see.

So will you.

As a nonbeliever, this discovery doesn't strike me as proof or definitive at all. But it is undeniable that the style of writing is quite similar to that of the Book of Mormon, and the "and it came to pass" phrase comes up an awful lot, meaning that unless Mr. Hunt was borrowing from ancient Hebrew, the Book of Mormon's use of the same isn't remarkable.

[Peppermint Patty]

So will you.

As a nonbeliever, this discovery doesn't strike me as proof or definitive at all. But it is undeniable that the style of writing is quite similar to that of the Book of Mormon, and the "and it came to pass" phrase comes up an awful lot, meaning that unless Mr. Hunt was borrowing from ancient Hebrew, the Book of Mormon's use of the same isn't remarkable.

 

Is this the only similarity we are talking about, "and it came to pass"?

[jkwilliams]

Is this the only similarity we are talking about, "and it came to pass"?

Nope.

[DJBrown]

Folks - this is lighting up some LDS-related sites:

 

http://askreality.com/hidden-in-plain-sight/#more-56

 

Seems a cursory textual analysis of works published pre-1830 has yielded some clue as to books that influenced the BOM!

 

You do understand that the underlying assumption in this type of study is that any given text being analyzed is influenced by all the books to which it is compared, right?

 

It is like the stylometry or wordprint studies comparing the text of the Book of Mormon to various individuals, like Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sydney Rigon, etc.  These studies comparies the patterns of word usage between the text and writings from these individuals and calculates which person's writing style most closely matches the text of the Book of Mormon.  The whole study is set up to produce a result showing that the Book of Mormon most closely matches one of these individuals' writing style.  It does not allow for the possibility that the Book of Mormon came from an ancient source.  It assumes from the outset that it is the result of one those previously mentioned individuals. 

 

This type of study is the exact same thing- it is designed to rank power of influence independent of whether that influence actually existed.  It is amazing that these types of studies continue to impress people.

[Peppermint Patty]

Nope.

Thanks. I guess I deserved that answer because I haven't reviewed the link in the OP. I feel lazy this morning and was hoping you would provide me a summary of the more interesting parts.

[Kevin Christensen]

Compare Ben McGuire's essays on assessing parallels based on words and phrases.

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/parallels.htm

Also his parts 1 and 2 here, on parallels.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/author/benm/

And for contrast to the forgoing approaches, parallels of an entirely different sort in how they are found and what they disclose:

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2001-fair-conference/2001-nephi-and-goliath-a-reappraisal-of-the-use-of-the-old-testament-in-first-nephi

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[jkwilliams]

Compare Ben McGuire's essays on assessing parallels based on words and phrases.

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/parallels.htm

Also his parts 1 and 2 here, on parallels.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/author/benm/

And for contrast to the forgoing approaches, parallels of an entirely different sort in how they are found and what they disclose:

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2001-fair-conference/2001-nephi-and-goliath-a-reappraisal-of-the-use-of-the-old-testament-in-first-nephi

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

As I said in my thread about moundbuilders, you can pretty much find parallels with whatever you wish. What I find interesting here is not so much specific parallels but that the stylistic choices of the Book of Mormon make more sense when you know the context, and Hunt's book, IMO, provides some context. A lot of apologetic effort seems to be expended trying to show that the Book of Mormon is unique for its time and place. That's a difficult case to make.

Does any of this have any bearing on the book's spiritual value? Obviously not.

[cognitiveharmony]

This appears to be much  more than similar writing styles and phrasing etc. There are very specific parallels that will need to be explained. Such as the 2000 men that boarded the ship to go to war with their "chief captain" and as they marched to battle a "a stripling from the south with his weapon of war in his hand" coming to his chief captain so speak to him. This is one of many similarities that has already been brought up. I can already foresee a 300 page essay being written in an attempt to mitigate the damage that will come from this. Will this convince a TBM to leave the church? I don't know. I think it's going to collapse the already heavy laden shelves of many. 

[canard78]

As I said in my thread about moundbuilders, you can pretty much find parallels with whatever you wish. What I find interesting here is not so much specific parallels but that the stylistic choices of the Book of Mormon make more sense when you know the context, and Hunt's book, IMO, provides some context. A lot of apologetic effort seems to be expended trying to show that the Book of Mormon is unique for its time and place. That's a difficult case to make.

Does any of this have any bearing on the book's spiritual value? Obviously not.

 

A loose translation doesn't even need the book to be unique for its time and place.

 

If Joseph was reading off a 'ticker tape on a rock' then it is a bit more of an issue (unless the typist behind the ticker was an angel using the language of the day... for effect).

 

Personally I am a 'hung jury' on the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon. It could, for me, still be originally produced in the 19thC and still be inspired scripture. I consider much of the Old Testament to myth and legend, but lots of it remains useful lessons for life.

 

Having said that, if you do an analysis of 130,000 books you're probably going to find some correlation with the Book of Mormon eventually. There are, after all, only so many words in the English language. I thin Brant Gardner said somewhere that the Book of Mormon only contains 5,000 unique words. It was in one of his book intros I read the other day on Amazon (look inside).

[jkwilliams]

A loose translation doesn't even need the book to be unique for its time and place.

 

If Joseph was reading off a 'ticker tape on a rock' then it is a bit more of an issue (unless the typist behind the ticker was an angel using the language of the day... for effect).

 

Personally I am a 'hung jury' on the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon. It could, for me, still be originally produced in the 19thC and still be inspired scripture. I consider much of the Old Testament to myth and legend, but lots of it remains useful lessons for life.

 

Having said that, if you do an analysis of 130,000 books you're probably going to find some correlation with the Book of Mormon eventually. There are, after all, only so many words in the English language. I thin Brant Gardner said somewhere that the Book of Mormon only contains 5,000 unique words. It was in one of his book intros I read the other day on Amazon (look inside).

To me, whether it's inspired or not does not rest on its antiquity. I do find that it fits in quite nicely with a 19th-century production in terms of subject, content, and language. "Smoking gun"? Nah, but interesting nonetheless.

[canard78]

By the way - crossing over a couple of threads. Is this the so-called October surprise that they've been chatting about on NOM etc? They've only got 8 days to bring the church down if this isn't the October surprise. I heard Tom was really looking forward to that.

 

(tongue slightly in cheek)

[canard78]

To me, whether it's inspired or not does not rest on its antiquity. I do find that it fits in quite nicely with a 19th-century production in terms of subject, content, and language. "Smoking gun"? Nah, but interesting nonetheless.

 

Certainly interesting. If I fully accept an ancient eventually I would still imagine I'd be a very proponent of a very loose translation. This would be a reasonable explanation for so much of the 19thC sources finding its way into the language of the Book of Mormon.

 

Also, it says on the website that "united-states-of-america" is one of the four word matches to the Book of Mormon. 

 

Not sure it is: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&query=united+states+of+america&testament=bofm

[canard78]

And in case it comes up, Royal Skousen's theory that it was actually translated in 16thC language and read off as a tight translation holds very little weight for me. In another thread I was able to find at least two of the (very short) list of examples he gave as "dead phrases" still being in use in the 19thC (and even today).

[jkwilliams]

Certainly interesting. If I fully accept an ancient eventually I would still imagine I'd be a very proponent of a very loose translation. This would be a reasonable explanation for so much of the 19thC sources finding its way into the language of the Book of Mormon.

 

Also, it says on the website that "united-states-of-america" is one of the four word matches to the Book of Mormon. 

 

Not sure it is: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&query=united+states+of+america&testament=bofm

Yes, I'd say that a "loose translation" works better, given the language and such, but then that poses problems for proposed Hebraisms and translation issues ("horses," for example).

As for the methodology, I'll leave it to someone else and state the obvious: the language and contents in this book are strikingly similar to that of the Book of Mormon. What people do with that is their business.

[cognitiveharmony]

A loose translation doesn't even need the book to be unique for its time and place.

 

If Joseph was reading off a 'ticker tape on a rock' then it is a bit more of an issue (unless the typist behind the ticker was an angel using the language of the day... for effect).

 

Personally I am a 'hung jury' on the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon. It could, for me, still be originally produced in the 19thC and still be inspired scripture. I consider much of the Old Testament to myth and legend, but lots of it remains useful lessons for life.

 

Having said that, if you do an analysis of 130,000 books you're probably going to find some correlation with the Book of Mormon eventually. There are, after all, only so many words in the English language. I thin Brant Gardner said somewhere that the Book of Mormon only contains 5,000 unique words. It was in one of his book intros I read the other day on Amazon (look inside).

 

Canard78,

 

Sorry for the question but I'm a little confused by your "inspired scripture" statement. I was wondering if you could elaborate on that a little for me. I'm not quite sure of the justification here because you would basically be saying that God inspired Joseph Smith to write a fictional book and then present it as a historical book and thus lie. If this were the case, you're saying that God would be involved in an elaborate hoax. Just so you know I'm basically agnostic having left the LDS church a short while ago. I believe in a creator God but that's about it. If there is a God, I would hope that He isn't a liar and wouldn't participate in such dishonest behavior.

[canard78]

Yes, I'd say that a "loose translation" works better, given the language and such, but then that poses problems for proposed Hebraisms and translation issues ("horses," for example).

As for the methodology, I'll leave it to someone else and state the obvious: the language and contents in this book are strikingly similar to that of the Book of Mormon. What people do with that is their business.

 

Not to get too far off topic, but I think the Hebraisms are actually not hebraisms. They're just words. There's a limit to the way they can be put in a straight line. With 500 pages worth you're going to eventually get some that match the way other people write them. Which may also be the explanation for The Late War...

 

As for horses - I'd always thought that works better as a loose translation. If Joseph's describing impressions/ideas rather than reading a ticker then he's more (not less) likely to plump for a word like "horse" when describing an animal that was used for human assistance (whether it was a horse or not). 

 

Online link if anyone wants to read The Late War...: 

http://www.forgottenbooks.org/readbook/Late_War_Between_the_United_States_and_Great_Britain_from_June_1812_to_1000465829#9

 

Or

 

http://archive.org/details/historyoflatewargb00brac

[canard78]

Canard78,

 

Sorry for the question but I'm a little confused by your "inspired scripture" statement. I was wondering if you could elaborate on that a little for me. I'm not quite sure of the justification here because you would basically be saying that God inspired Joseph Smith to write a fictional book and then present it as a historical book and thus lie. If this were the case, you're saying that God would be involved in an elaborate hoax. Just so you know I'm basically agnostic having left the LDS church a short while ago. I believe in a creator God but that's about it. If there is a God, I would hope that He isn't a liar and wouldn't participate in such dishonest behavior.

 

I believe in God the effective teacher. I believe in God who is a pragmatist. I believe in God who, like parents perpetuating Santa, sometimes lets us believe something we're convinced is true "for effect" even when it isn't. If it is a "hoax" as you put it, I'm not sure that Joseph was "in on it." I don't take Joseph to be a con-artist. I think he was genuine. I think he probably believed he really was dictating an ancient book - I'm still open to the possibility that he was indeed translating an ancient book. Loosely.

 

How many children hate their parents for ever because they lied about Santa? I've never met a single one. We all realised, on maturing, that it was a wonderfully effective way of injecting even more magic and excitement into the Christmas season. I don't begrudge my parents one iota for lying about Santa, because I loved the magic of Christmas morning. I loved the effect of believing in Santa even though he didn't exist. So much so that I am fully into perpetuating the hoax to my own kids and actively protecting them from finding out - just one Christmas more.

 

I firmly believe in a God of "for effect." There are 7 billion of us. We are so diverse that "one way" of teaching can't possibly work for us all. So, as a perfect teacher, he has to create multiple teaching methods. And some of them, in our limited understanding and imperfect teaching styles, would perceive it as a hoax. Did Mary appear, in reality, at Lourdes to Bernadette? I don't really care. If it increased faith, if it had an effect of increasing faith and changing lives then it doesn't really matter.

 

Mormon's should be very comfortable with a God of "for effect": 

 

D&C 19:7

 

 

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

 7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

(Emphasis mine)

Edited October 21, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

Yes, I'd say that a "loose translation" works better, given the language and such, but then that poses problems for proposed Hebraisms and translation issues ("horses," for example).

As for the methodology, I'll leave it to someone else and state the obvious: the language and contents in this book are strikingly similar to that of the Book of Mormon. What people do with that is their business.

 

I've only reached chapter 4 and... yes... strikingly similar! If the Book of Mormon and the History of the British-American war had a love child this would be it. If the History of the British-American war put on the Book of Mormon's clothes... then this would be it. If the... (you get the idea).

 

 

Chapter IV

 

2. Now it came to pass, that a certain man, whose sirname was Henry, came before James, the chief governor, and opened his mouth, and spake unto him saying,

3. Lo! If thou wilt give me two score and ten thousand pieces of silver, then will I unfold unto thee the witchcraft of Britain, that thereby thy nation may not be caught in her snares.

4. And James said unto him, Verily, for the good of my country I will do this thing.

[WmLaw]

Is this the only similarity we are talking about, "and it came to pass"?

I'm unphased by multiple instances of "and it came to pass"...

Until I see some real similarities like strippling warriors or items of curious workmanship, I'll remain unimpressed.

Edited October 21, 2013 by WmLaw

[jkwilliams]

I'm unphased by multiple instances of "and it came to pass"...

Until I see some real similarities like strippling warriors or items of curious workmanship, I'll remain unimpressed.

http://archive.org/stream/latewarbetweenun00inhunt#page/42/mode/2up/search/curious+workmanship

[cognitiveharmony]

I believe in God the effective teacher. I believe in God who is a pragmatist. I believe in God who, like parents perpetuating Santa, sometimes lets us believe something we're convinced is true "for effect" even when it isn't. If it is a "hoax" as you put it, I'm not sure that Joseph was "in on it." I don't take Joseph to be a con-artist. I think he was genuine. I think he probably believed he really was dictating an ancient book - I'm still open to the possibility that he was indeed translating an ancient book. Loosely.

 

How many children hate their parents for ever because they lied about Santa? I've never met a single one. We all realised, on maturing, that it was a wonderfully effective way of injecting even more magic and excitement into the Christmas season. I don't begrudge my parents one iota for lying about Santa, because I loved the magic of Christmas morning. I loved the effect of believing in Santa even though he didn't exist. So much so that I am fully into perpetuating the hoax to my own kids and actively protecting them from finding out - just one Christmas more.

 

I firmly believe in a God of "for effect." There are 7 billion of us. We are so diverse that "one way" of teaching can't possibly work for us all. So, as a perfect teacher, he has to create multiple teaching methods. And some of them, in our limited understanding and imperfect teaching styles, would perceive it as a hoax. Did Mary appear, in reality, at Lourdes to Bernadette? I don't really care. If it increased faith, if it had an effect of increasing faith and changing lives then it doesn't really matter.

 

Mormon's should be very comfortable with a God of "for effect": 

 

D&C 19:7

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

Thanks for answering my question. I was really curious as to how you could arrive at a position such as that. Your answer actually spawns lots of followup questions but out of respect for this thread I'll leave it at that as not to derail it.

[Peppermint Patty]

Okay. I've reviewed and am in a better position to comment. The link claims a word or text analysis shows The Book of Mormon borrowed heavily from The Great War Between Britain. Some people are also claiming that The Book of Mormon borrows heavily in terms of theme and specifics, like the Stripling Warriors, the Freemen and Kingmen, The Liahona and others.

 

I can't find where this has been addressed by FAIR or other places. Has this been addressed yet?