Book Of Mormon: New Evidence Of 19Th Century Origin

[wenglund]

Maybe it means that finally, at last, the Spaulding manuscript theorists have given up and are looking for new fodder.

 

Glenn

 

They may be looking for new fodder, but will likely end up with the same old straw.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Peppermint Patty]

They may be looking for new fodder, but will likely end up with the same old straw.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 Or in this case, the same old stripling warrior or freeman.

[wenglund]

Wade, your opinion would hold a lot more weight if we did not have access to both books. Fortunately we have both books, and this thread contains but a few of the many parallels that are evident. 

 

We are beyond "this is absurd".

 

I wasn't expecting my opinion to hold weight. That is why I encouraged people to access the Late War (I assumed they already had access to the Book of Mormon), and even supplied a link. People can see the absurdity for themselves. The lameness of the "many parallels" will be made self-evident even in a brief reading,

 

But, you are free to demonstrate otherwise. See if you can write, in 60 days, a book similar to the Book of Mormon using the Late War. Good luck with that.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 23, 2013 by wenglund

[Brant Gardner]

I am late to this discussion, but I'll toss out one of the things that I see as a problem. It is one of connections. In this case, I will posit that the book was available to Joseph. Now decide how it was the "source" of the Book of Mormon. Does anyone seriously propose that Joseph kept that book by his side and as he constructed the Book of Mormon text and was at a loss of words, he searched that book to find some phrases that he thought would work?

 

If the suggestion is rather than the vocabulary of the book influenced Joseph, then we are back to the same problem of the influence of the KJV. It is just as much the "source" as any other possible book, and more since we know that there are direct quotations long enough to be way beyond random coincidence. Once we have this level of influence, the idea that it is a "source" is laughable. 

 

As a phrase-book from which Joseph cribbed at random, it is so impractical as to be implausible.

[Tacenda]

I wasn't expecting my opinion to hold weight. That is why I encouraged people to access the Late War (I assumed they already had access to the Book of Mormon), and even supplied at link. People can see the absurdity for themselves. The lameness of the "many parallels" will be made self-evident even in a brief reading,

But, you are free to demonstrate otherwise. See if you can write, in 60 days, a book similar to the Book of Mormon using the Late War. Good luck with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

People say 60 days but couldn't he have gotten started on it much earlier on his own, before Oliver Cowdery came on the scene? Edited October 23, 2013 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

1828 Webster's dictionary  http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/stripling

stripling

STRIPLING, n. [from strip, stripe; primarily a tall slender youth, one that shoots up suddenly.] A youth in the state of adolescence, or just passing from boyhood to manhood; a lad.

  And the king said, inquire thou whose son the stripling is. 1 Samuel 18.

Conclusive proof that Joseph Smith spoke English and lived in the 19th Century and was influenced by the dictionary which was clearly the source of the Book of Mormon.

Edited October 23, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I wasn't expecting my opinion to hold weight. That is why I encouraged people to access the Late War (I assumed they already had access to the Book of Mormon), and even supplied at link. People can see the absurdity for themselves. The lameness of the "many parallels" will be made self-evident even in a brief reading,

 

But, you are free to demonstrate otherwise. See if you can write, in 60 days, a book similar to the Book of Mormon using the Late War. Good luck with that.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh yes

 

And include doctrine which alters Christianity at its core while maintaining the overall structure of the atonement, resurrection, etc

[wenglund]

 Or in this case, the same old stripling warrior or freeman.

 

...or any one of a number of rebels with a cause through the annals of human history (before and after the 19th century). See the top ten list HERE.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

People say 60 days but couldn't he have gotten started on it much earlier on his own, before Oliver Cowderey came on the scene?

 

I suppose it is possible. However, I see no reason not to take Joseph at his word, particularly when there is ample data supporting his claim. After all, when Joseph gave a brief history of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, I doubt he anticipated that years later people would be plying all sorts of naturalistic theories, each of which may strain credulity given the 60 day time frame.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Sethbag]

I am late to this discussion, but I'll toss out one of the things that I see as a problem. It is one of connections. In this case, I will posit that the book was available to Joseph. Now decide how it was the "source" of the Book of Mormon. Does anyone seriously propose that Joseph kept that book by his side and as he constructed the Book of Mormon text and was at a loss of words, he searched that book to find some phrases that he thought would work?

I was going to ask "does anyone seriously propose that Joseph kept his face in a hat as he constructed the Book of Mormon text and simply read off the words as they appeared to him as if by magic?"  But then I remembered that yes, they in fact do propose this.

 

I don't know that anyone is proposing that JS (or whoever actually authored the BoM) used The Late War as a phrase book, per se.  But that JS or the real BoM author had a more than passing familiarity with this other book, or possibly with some 3rd book from which both derive, seems pretty obvious upon even a cursory read of "The Late War".  When this topic hit the net in the last day I went and started reading "The Last War", and was dumbfounded with the obvious stylistic similarity, right on down to very specific phrases I'd only ever seen in the BoM before, or at least I'd only seen these all together in the BoM before.

 

 

If the suggestion is rather than the vocabulary of the book influenced Joseph, then we are back to the same problem of the influence of the KJV. It is just as much the "source" as any other possible book, and more since we know that there are direct quotations long enough to be way beyond random coincidence. Once we have this level of influence, the idea that it is a "source" is laughable. 

 

As a phrase-book from which Joseph cribbed at random, it is so impractical as to be implausible.

I don't think anyone is saying that this book is "the source".  But it certainly looks an awful like a source for a lot of the linguistic style of the BoM. 

 

The argument will end up being similar to the arguments about the temple endowment and some of the ceremonies of Freemasonry: the story told is obviously not the same, but the form, and at least some of the substance, certainly is derivative.  You simply can't read through Duncan's Rituals without frequent eye-popping, exceedingly temple-like wordings, procedures, physical acts and representations, etc.  The feeling upon reading through The Late War is just like this.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Sethbag

[Brant Gardner]

I don't think anyone is saying that this book is "the source".  But it certainly looks an awful like a source for a lot of the linguistic style of the BoM. 

Actually, that is how it is being "translated" in many locations. The problem is that what it demonstrates is that the English vocabulary of the Book of Mormon is not unusual for that time period. Since you note that no one says that he used it as a phrase book, the only way it because any "source" for the Book of Mormon is that Joseph spoke a particular type of English that wasn't unusual. That may be the least important revelation about Joseph ever.

 

Phrases unique to the Book of Mormon? If you don't believe that the text is a literal translation of the plates that required those very words, then the discovery of those phrases in another book simply indicates that when one is imitating a KJV style that type of phrase can be generated. As I said, the one thing is proves is that Joseph spoke a particular flavor of English.

[oremites]

Has anyone started checking The Late War for chiasms?

[jkwilliams]

I am late to this discussion, but I'll toss out one of the things that I see as a problem. It is one of connections. In this case, I will posit that the book was available to Joseph. Now decide how it was the "source" of the Book of Mormon. Does anyone seriously propose that Joseph kept that book by his side and as he constructed the Book of Mormon text and was at a loss of words, he searched that book to find some phrases that he thought would work?

 

If the suggestion is rather than the vocabulary of the book influenced Joseph, then we are back to the same problem of the influence of the KJV. It is just as much the "source" as any other possible book, and more since we know that there are direct quotations long enough to be way beyond random coincidence. Once we have this level of influence, the idea that it is a "source" is laughable. 

 

As a phrase-book from which Joseph cribbed at random, it is so impractical as to be implausible.

 

It doesn't look like a direct "source," but as Phaedrus mentioned earlier, looking at both books as 19th century creations, it looks as if it had an influence. The similarities in style and content are too uncanny to be coincidence, IMO.

[jkwilliams]

Oh yes

 

And include doctrine which alters Christianity at its core while maintaining the overall structure of the atonement, resurrection, etc

 

You're making the same mistake Wade is. I'm kind of surprised.

[The Grimace]

I wasn't expecting my opinion to hold weight. That is why I encouraged people to access the Late War (I assumed they already had access to the Book of Mormon), and even supplied a link. People can see the absurdity for themselves. The lameness of the "many parallels" will be made self-evident even in a brief reading,

 

But, you are free to demonstrate otherwise. See if you can write, in 60 days, a book similar to the Book of Mormon using the Late War. Good luck with that.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

60 days is debatable, but it's do-able. What I would say here is this: If I wrote such a book, and published it to the world, and a textual influence study was executed on my book, it would show strong influences from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, The Catcher in the Rye, and perhaps a few of my other faves from which my imagination has been constructed.

 

And I would not have to crack open any of those books for that influence to be apparent. It would naturally happen.

 

Now, Wade, et al, a number of people have cracked open The Late War, and are demonstrating parallels that show the weakness in previous arguments that support the authenticity of the BoM as ancient scripture. Hebraisms are falling dead, a prototypical Liahonna appears....elephants, striplings...

 

I don't begrudge the faithful their positions; after all, 4 days ago no one had really heard of this book. So I can understand the outrage and the rapid fire denials and "Nothing to see here, move along!" approach. Perhaps we need a bit of time to hear from apologists who are able to take a reasoned approach, acknowledge the similarities, and provide rational explanations.

 

For now, we'll just have to exercise patience and understand that this is an intensely emotional time for those who see a great religious tome turned to into a mere literary work.

[cdowis]

I don't think anyone is saying that this book is "the source".  But it certainly looks an awful like a source for a lot of the linguistic style of the BoM. 

 

The argument will end up being similar to the arguments about the temple endowment and some of the ceremonies of Freemasonry: the story told is obviously not the same, but the form, and at least some of the substance, certainly is derivative.  You simply can't read through Duncan's Rituals without frequent eye-popping, exceedingly temple-like wordings, procedures, physical acts and representations, etc.  The feeling upon reading through The Late War is just like this.

 

 

Apples and oranges.

 

The origin of the masonic rituals is unknown -- some claim it goes back to Solomon's temple, and the LDS rituals also go back to the same source.  In the case of "The Late War", it has a known author and there would be no common source to the BOM.

[pcarthew]

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!

It is a very lame study, it sounds impressively academic and thorough, but it actually proves not one thing good or bad about the Book of Mormon, apart from the fact if you analyse thousands books in a given time set, you come up with some similar phrases...it is one of the most lame studies I have ever read on the Book of Mormon. Edited October 23, 2013 by pcarthew

[stemelbow]

It doesn't look like a direct "source," but as Phaedrus mentioned earlier, looking at both books as 19th century creations, it looks as if it had an influence. The similarities in style and content are too uncanny to be coincidence, IMO.

 

The war book could have been an influence even if the BoM was not a 19th century creation.  I think that's kind of how translation works, no?  Known or familiar phrases are used. 

[jkwilliams]

The war book could have been an influence even if the BoM was not a 19th century creation.  I think that's kind of how translation works, no?  Known or familiar phrases are used. 

 

It's not just phrases but themes, content, and the reasons for certain stylistic choices. Is this the nail in the coffin? Nah, not by a longshot, but for me, it does put the Book of Mormon in context better.

 

As a friend put it, it's like writing a song and then realizing someone else wrote it first. Think, for example of this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rinz9Avvq6A

Later, the songwriter sued George Harrison for plagiarism for this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kNGnIKUdMI

 

Harrison said he hadn't realized until he was sued that he had unconsciously cribbed the melody of that song.

Does this mean Hunt's book was a source? No, but it certainly puts the Book of Mormon in the context of its time. Here's how I see it:

What would a 19th-century book about war written in KJV style and theme look like? It would look a lot like Hunt's book.

What would a 19th-century book about war, religion, and mound-builder mythology look like? It would look a lot like the Book of Mormon.

 

The problem for some people--on both sides of the issue, it seems--is that they apparently believe that any 19th-century influence on the contents, themes, and styles of the Book of Mormon invalidates it as scripture, which is silly, of course. That would be like saying that, because George Harrison unconsciously borrowed from "He's So Fine," his later song is of no value and shouldn't ever be played.

 

[jkwilliams]

It is a very lame study, it sounds impressively academic and thorough, but it actually proves not one thing good or bad about the Book of Mormon, apart from the fact if you analyse thousands books in a given time set, you come up with some similar phrases...it is one of the most lame studies I have ever read on the Book of Mormon.

 

No, you can't prove anything, but it's silly to take a victory lap after such a glib dismissal and understatement of the issues.

[cognitiveharmony]

Well it sounds like you are in that ballpark.  Basically it means that if a statement is not scientifically verifiable, you should not accept it.

 

 

 

But there are problems with that view.  Unfortunately the world is not always "logical".

 

Good old wikipedia. There are other sites of course, but not quite as user friendly.   I added the underlining.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

 

I would say there is a whole boatload there of valid reasons not to take a positivist position.

 

There are a boatload of reasons out there to not take a postivist position regarding the accuracy of tarot card reading too but none of them are very convincing to me. I suppose you could enumerate your reasons but I'm sure we're both very familiar. In my mind, this is not a scientific endeavor. I wasn't trying to prove or disprove the unknowable as Blake was. My comments were 100% based on what is already known as a basis for a rational explanation and should be given much more weight than an explanation that involves the yet unproven and unknown. Thanks for your opinion, it was interesting.

[stemelbow]

 

It's not just phrases but themes, content, and the reasons for certain stylistic choices.

 

Yes either way.  Perhaps it has influence for many reasons, but such reasons don't force the book to have no ancient source. 

 

Could it be that God revealed the words which happened to reflect the style, themes, content of the War book?  Why would He do that?  Beats me.  But why would that matter? 

 

I think its far more interesting if you first assume the BoM's origin is in the 19th century.  its less interesting if you first assume the book is scripture and its source is of ancient origin. 

 

This could very well explain why the plates are not for us to see and investigate any longer.  Perhaps if modern translations took place perhaps what would result was something akin to the book of breathings or something.  Possible?  Weird, but I guess so.

[jkwilliams]

Yes either way.  Perhaps it has influence for many reasons, but such reasons don't force the book to have no ancient source.

I believe I already said that.

 

Could it be that God revealed the words which happened to reflect the style, themes, content of the War book?  Why would He do that?  Beats me.  But why would that matter?

Obviously, it doesn't matter to a lot of people.

 

I think its far more interesting if you first assume the BoM's origin is in the 19th century.  its less interesting if you first assume the book is scripture and its source is of ancient origin.

I don't see why. If I assumed the Book of Mormon really was a translation of an ancient record, I would find it fascinating to ponder the influence of Joseph Smith's environment on the translation, including stylistic choices, themes, and contents.  

 

This could very well explain why the plates are not for us to see and investigate any longer.  Perhaps if modern translations took place perhaps what would result was something akin to the book of breathings or something.  Possible?  Weird, but I guess so.

We have what we have in the Book of Mormon. To me, this just opens up a lot of room for discussing why it looks the way it does, whether or not it's scripture.

The victory laps on both sides are wildly inappropriate.

[ERayR]

It doesn't look like a direct "source," but as Phaedrus mentioned earlier, looking at both books as 19th century creations, it looks as if it had an influence. The similarities in style and content are too uncanny to be coincidence, IMO.

 

Of course it is a 19th century creation.  It is a 19th century translation of an abridgement of the work of numerous authors, produced over a long time period.  Did you expect Joseph to translate it into the vernacular of 10th century french? 

[jkwilliams]

Of course it is a 19th century creation.  It is a 19th century translation of an abridgement of the work of numerous authors, produced over a long time period.  Did you expect Joseph to translate it into the vernacular of 10th century french?

Of course not. The KJV language is obvious and has been discussed ad infinitum, and it's interesting that so many people (again on both sides) are jumping to the conclusion that this is just about repetitions of certain words and phrases. What I find interesting is the stylistic choices, the themes, and the contents themselves align pretty well between the two books.