Book Of Mormon: New Evidence Of 19Th Century Origin

[stemelbow]

I believe I already said that.
 

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

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.  
 

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.

 

 

Good.  And your song parable may have some play here.  Was this book such an influence on Joseph and scribes that they unintentionally took from it?  Perhaps.  But where does the discussion go from there? 

Edited October 23, 2013 by stemelbow

[CA Steve]

 

 

 

 

 

Good.  And your song parable may have some play here.  Was this book such an influence on Joseph and scribes that they unintentionally took from it?  Perhaps.  But where does the discussion go from there? 

 

The discussion goes to the claims of literary devices as proof of ancient origin.

[pmccombs1]

 

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.

 

 

Apparently Rick Grunder had already read through the Gilbert Hunt book several times and published his own analysis of parallels with the Book of Mormon, including a discussion on chiasms with an example of one passage from the Hunt book and an analysis of Alma 36. This work was done in 2008. Here is a link to some relevant information:  http://www.rickgrunder.com/parallels/mp193.pdf

[stemelbow]

The discussion goes to the claims of literary devices as proof of ancient origin.

 

Alright I'm out of that discussion.  When I first started reading about Hebraisms in the BoM, I was like, and???  I don't see how they help support the Book.  We don't even know how the translation took place.  Why assume Hebraisms would someone filter through the translation, provided they even made it to people who lived hundreds of years after Lehi left Jerusalem. 

[mfbukowski]

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

And you're not listening nor are you even making an argument.  There's nothing there.

 

I'm not surprised.

[jkwilliams]

And you're not listening nor are you even making an argument.  There's nothing there.

 

I'm not surprised.

Wade's mistake is in assuming that similar words and phrases are what we're talking about. I was surprised that you went along with that assumption.

[phaedrus ut]

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.

 

I believe there was a physical copy of the King James Bible, among other texts, used in the construction of the Book of Mormon. The likelihood that the KJV wasn't used to compose the BOM is the same as the likelihood that the KJV wasn't used to create the JST bible.

 

Some people argue the KJV is in the BOM by some supernatural means.  It makes no sense to use supernatural means to replicate KJV errors and add anachronistic texts to the BOM when a physical copy of the Bible was sitting on the bookshelf of every home in America.

 

Phaedrus

Edited October 23, 2013 by phaedrus ut

[mfbukowski]

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.

OK well I have enjoyed the chat

 

But you really should read up on what philosophers in the philosophy of science think about the validity of your underlying assumptions about positivisim.

[jkwilliams]

I believe there was a physical copy of the King James Bible, among other texts, used in the construction of the Book of Mormon. The likelihood that the KJV wasn't used to compose the BOM is the same as the likelihood that the KJV wasn't used to create the JST bible.

 

Some people argue the KJV is in the BOM by some supernatural means.  It makes no sense to use supernatural means to replicate KJV errors and add anachronistic texts to the BOM when a physical copy of the Bible was sitting on the bookshelf of every home in America.

 

Phaedrus

That seems pretty reasonable to me, as the Book of Mormon quotes extensively from the particular edition (1769, IIRC) that was used at the time. Excluding everything else, that suggests to me that Joseph Smith had some input as to the style and contents of the Book of Mormon. Understanding that he had influence like that shouldn't threaten anyone except those who believe the Book of Mormon was received word-for-word, from the mouth of God. That's not usually how scripture comes about.

[Glenn101]

As for Hebriasms, this certainly weakens those arguments. But I do not think this entirely eliminates them (I'm not saying that you think it does either. I quite agree that it merits some "pause" before we accept them as legitimate examples of ancient constructs.) James R. Edwards, in his book The Hebrew Gospel and the Synoptic Tradition (Eerdmans, 2009) argues that the gospel of Luke is based on an original, but now lost, Hebrew Gospel. Part of his argument is "Semiticisms" in the text. However, the Septuagint also contained Semiticisms, and it was common for Hellinized Jews to imitate that language. So the situation is not to dissimilar than the Book of Mormon's English environment with the KJV. I haven't read Edwards book yet, but I understand he advances arguments for why he thinks the usage of Simiticisms in Luke can be set apart from the Septuagint mimicking going on at the time and instead indicate an actual Semitic original behind the text. The questions I have (for when I get the chance to read it) are these: (1) Does Edwards make an effective arrgument, and (2) can similar methods be employed to see if the Book of Mormon Hebarisms can be distinguished from KJVisms?

 

The question then arises, Do Book of Mormon Hebriasms reflect distinct usage from the KJV (and other texts that mimic it)? I don't know. But, I hope that I can explore that question at some point. In the meantime, Hebraisms should probably only be used cautiously, if at all. I myself I tried to restrict my usage of them to (1) Hebraisms that are not in the KJV, and (2) where the subtle Hebrew usages appear to be consistently reflected in the Book of Mormon (the kind of things I would expect to see being incorrectly used by someone copying KJV language without knowing any better). Even these might have other explanations in non-standard English and what have you, and so must be used with restraint, but I think such arguments do have some merit, even in the face of texts like The Lost War, etc. 

 

I would hardly say that this book and anything in it hardly weakens anything about the Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon. The work that LDS scholars have done, and are still doing, is building a case for an underlying Egyptian document written by Hebrew authors. If I understand it correctly, they are mostly using the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon and the printers manuscript because they more accurately reflect those semitic influences than later editions where some editorial changes have been made.

 

Now, the authors of this study need to look for those Egyptian elements in "The Late War".

 

In another post I alluded to the great but not late Spaulding manuscript theory that has been buried and resurected lo these many times. Years ago, Dale Broadhurst did a computer analysis of the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding manuscript and found many parallels that he felt were just too great to be coincidental. That seems to be what we have here. Parallels that just seem to be too great to be coincidental.

 

I am not disturbed by this "new" discovery at all. I remember the Jockers et all "new" word print study some years ago which at first blush seemed to "prove" that Solomon Spalding and several other authors made significant contributions to the Book of Mormon. That was hailed by some as the final nail in the coffin for the Book of Mormon. That study was shown to have some significant flaws which made the original results musch less persuasive. So, we will have to wait for the revelation of the complete methods and results to be analyzed and disected to find out just how good or not they are.

 

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

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.

But no one will say what this supposedy shows.

 

I am answering John, but this really is for anyone who wants to read it.

 

So what if they "align"?  What is the importance of that information?

 

It is the elephant in the room.

 

Everybody is dancing around and no one dares to make a statement either way about what this means.  "Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon"- if that is the conclusion who cares?

 

That is one interpretation of the data.

 

There is an infinity of possible interpretations of the data, and no one is making any conclusions. 

 

Joseph found the plates. 

Joseph made up the plates. 

Joseph was a fraud. 

Joseph was a prophet. 

Joseph found something which he thought were plates and thought he translatred them but didn't "really". 

Joseph lied about the whole thing and was a money-grubbing fraud who has duped millions of poor suckers. 

Joseph was the greatest to live besides Jesus

(who might also have been a fraud and/or a legend)

 

So far the answer stated on this thread is "none of the above"

 

These are not arguments, they are smoke and mirrors and inuendo and a waste of time.

 

But of course make sure that you don't make a definitive statement because then someone might show you are wrong!  We can't have that!

 

Don't question your assumptions- whichever side you are on- because then I might have to re-evaluate your life! 

 

I have evaluated my life, examined my assumptions, and my advice from this old man is for everyone else to do so as well. 

 

Science is not the answer- it can tell you nothing about what is important in life.  Science cannot tell you why it is wrong to do anything.  Science deliberately avoids questions about what is important in life- because such questions are seen as "subjective".

 

In so doing, unfortunately, it has made itself devoid of value.   Of course it is important to know how things work- and that is what it gives us.  But it gives significance to nothing and everything.   It is totally impartial, or actually pretends to be, because of course in any human endevor EVERYTHING has a motivation behind it, and that motivation is always survival in one sense or another.  Survival of the ego, survival of the income stream, survival of goodness, survival of my agenda- there is always motivation.

 

The authors of this study have a motivation as well but they are not disclosing what it is.  Perhaps it is fame and fortune.  Perhaps it is academic advancement and greater importance in their little universe, perhaps they think this will hurt the church which has wronged them, perhaps it is to get a grant, or make their wives or girlfriends love them more, or to catch one who does.  Perhaps it is to avoid cognitive dissonance.  Perhaps they are TBM's who want the world to see the BOM on a more spiritual level. 

 

But there is always a motivation behind science- there is always a "cause". 

 

That is because we humans always have a subjective core that drives us and which we have to satisfy, in many many ways.  As much as we think we are "rational" we will ultimately discover that we are driven by our wants and needs and survival.  The needs may be psychological or physical, or spiritual, but there are what we need to do.

 

I find it ironic that we as a society no long ask people politely to do things, we often say "I need to you stand over there" or "I need you to sign this for me" or "I need you to move your car" etc.  Our very speech betrays our selfish intents.

 

Anyway, I have said much of what "I need" to say here so will take a break for a while- dunno, could be days, weeks or forever.  We'll see how it shakes out!

[mfbukowski]

Wade's mistake is in assuming that similar words and phrases are what we're talking about. I was surprised that you went along with that assumption.

And you're not telling me "what you're talking about" either

 

Case closed

[jkwilliams]

But no one will say what this supposedy shows.

 

I am answering John, but this really is for anyone who wants to read it.

 

So what if they "align"?  What is the importance of that information?

It is the elephant in the room.

Everybody is dancing around and no one dares to make a statement either way about what this means. "Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon"- if that is the conclusion who cares?

I've said several times in this thread why I think it's important. I read the whole book, and I'm still working through a lot of conclusions, but I can say that, at least on first read, this book is quite illuminating as to the style and content choices in the Book of Mormon. Some characteristics of the Book of Mormon that have been touted as evidence of antiquity also show up in the Hunt book, meaning that at least some of these bullseyes are a lot less remarkable than previously thought.

If anything, this may mean that a tight translation is less tenable than some people think and that the book's production (inspired or not) was affected by the environment into which it emerged, perhaps more than some people believe. None of this is fatal to belief in the divinity of the Book of Mormon, IMO.

 

That is one interpretation of the data.

 

There is an infinity of possible interpretations of the data, and no one is making any conclusions. 

 

Joseph found the plates. 

Joseph made up the plates. 

Joseph was a fraud. 

Joseph was a prophet. 

Joseph found something which he thought were plates and thought he translatred them but didn't "really". 

Joseph lied about the whole thing and was a money-grubbing fraud who has duped millions of poor suckers. 

Joseph was the greatest to live besides Jesus

(who might also have been a fraud and/or a legend)

 

So far the answer stated on this thread is "none of the above"

 

These are not arguments, they are smoke and mirrors and inuendo and a waste of time.

Do you really think I'm making a case against the Book of Mormon? Clearly, what I find fascinating you consider a waste of time, which is no skin off my back. To me, the production of the Book of Mormon is fascinating, that's all. As both a believer and an evil apostate, I've had a lot of questions about how this came about. The Hunt book gives me a better idea of some things and suggests more avenues of inquiry.

So what? Does this matter in the eternal scheme of things? No, but it's interesting. I'm interested in growing heirloom tomatoes, too.

 

But of course make sure that you don't make a definitive statement because then someone might show you are wrong!  We can't have that!

I just barely read the whole book last night, but I believe that, based on what I've read, I have made a tentative conclusion, which again I've stated many times in this thread: This indicates to me that, revealed or not, the Book of Mormon was influenced more than I thought by its environment. If, by definitive, you want me to shout from the rooftops that the church is not true, well, sorry, that's not going to happen. That's not of interest to me.

 

Don't question your assumptions- whichever side you are on- because then I might have to re-evaluate your life!

If that's aimed at me, then I suggest you don't know me at all.

 

I have evaluated my life, examined my assumptions, and my advice from this old man is for everyone else to do so as well.

On that we can agree.

 

Science is not the answer- it can tell you nothing about what is important in life.  Science cannot tell you why it is wrong to do anything.  Science deliberately avoids questions about what is important in life- because such questions are seen as "subjective".

And that has nothing to do with anything I've said on this thread. The evidence is what it is--and it has to do with textual and literary theory--so I don't mind opining what I think. What I object to is your apparent demand that I come down firmly on whether it proves the Book of Mormon to be a fraud. Here's my answer: No, it does not.

 

In so doing, unfortunately, it has made itself devoid of value.   Of course it is important to know how things work- and that is what it gives us.

And that's why I find this interesting. The Hunt text does have something to say about how the translation/production process works.

 

But it gives significance to nothing and everything.   It is totally impartial, or actually pretends to be, because of course in any human endevor EVERYTHING has a motivation behind it, and that motivation is always survival in one sense or another.  Survival of the ego, survival of the income stream, survival of goodness, survival of my agenda- there is always motivation.

Sometimes you just find stuff interesting.

 

The authors of this study have a motivation as well but they are not disclosing what it is.  Perhaps it is fame and fortune.  Perhaps it is academic advancement and greater importance in their little universe, perhaps they think this will hurt the church which has wronged them, perhaps it is to get a grant, or make their wives or girlfriends love them more, or to catch one who does.  Perhaps it is to avoid cognitive dissonance.  Perhaps they are TBM's who want the world to see the BOM on a more spiritual level. 

If you've noticed, I haven't commented directly on the study itself because they're still working on it, and I don't find these statistical word-comparisons all that compelling in the first place. So, I don't care about their motivation.

 

But there is always a motivation behind science- there is always a "cause".

If you believe Kuhn, the cause is usually to reconfirm the prevailing paradigm.

 

That is because we humans always have a subjective core that drives us and which we have to satisfy, in many many ways.  As much as we think we are "rational" we will ultimately discover that we are driven by our wants and needs and survival.  The needs may be psychological or physical, or spiritual, but there are what we need to do.

 

I find it ironic that we as a society no long ask people politely to do things, we often say "I need to you stand over there" or "I need you to sign this for me" or "I need you to move your car" etc.  Our very speech betrays our selfish intents.

 

Anyway, I have said much of what "I need" to say here so will take a break for a while- dunno, could be days, weeks or forever.  We'll see how it shakes out!

In all honesty, I find your response here puzzling. It's no secret that people like me are no longer believers in Mormonism, but I don't really know what you are asking of me or anyone else. Does not believing mean I have to latch onto every possible "hit" against the church? Does it mean I have to be a cheerleader against the church? I don't think so. My piece on moundbuilders, for example, was about poor apologetics, not about the divinity of the Book of Mormon. My thoughts here have been about what I see as the implications of the Hunt book, which I will say again I believe are not fatal or damaging to belief in Mormonism.

Edited October 23, 2013 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

And you're not telling me "what you're talking about" either

 

Case closed

See my response to your other post about elephants in the room.

In short, common themes, stylistic choices, and contents suggest to me a common environment in which the two books were produced. I know, this isn't earth-shattering news, or at least it shouldn't be, but as I said, it fills in a few blanks for me and causes me to question claimed Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon.

I know why people want this to be a smoking gun and why others want to wave it off, but I find it fascinating. Sorry.

[Brant Gardner]

I believe there was a physical copy of the King James Bible, among other texts, used in the construction of the Book of Mormon. The likelihood that the KJV wasn't used to compose the BOM is the same as the likelihood that the KJV wasn't used to create the JST bible.

I have no problem agreeing to this plausible explanation. Imagine, however, that instead of copying long passages, he opened the book to random pages and selected only a set of three to four words to copy. Were it I, I might do it two or three times and then realize that it was a total waste of time. It is much easier to make up such phrases than to physically find and copy them.

[wenglund]

To summarize the discussion so far, after comparing the "Late War" with the Book of Mormon, cognitiveharmony said, "This appears to be much  more than similar writing styles and phrasing etc….that need to be explained…This book pre-dates the Book of Mormon and there are many phrases and concepts from this book that are mimicked in the BOM but are NOT found in the KJV….If the phrases are found in other contemporary works, it still supports the premise. He used words and phrasings from things around him that he was familiar with to render the translation."  

Sethbag was "dumbfounded with the obvious stylistic similarity, right on down to very specific phrases."

And, even though both cognaitiveharmony and Sethbag had explicitly mentioned "phrases," and the study clearly measured for four word phrases,  John Williams claimed, "Wade's mistake is in assuming that similar words and phrases are what we're talking about."  [Here is me scratching my head]

John further asserted: "it fits in quite nicely with a 19th-century production in terms of subject, content, and language…the language and contents in this book are strikingly similar…The similarities in style and content are too uncanny to be coincidence…What I find interesting is the stylistic choices, the themes, and the contents themselves align pretty well between the two books.," and this to the point that "it's like writing a song and then realizing someone else wrote it first."

Canard78 said, "I've only reached chapter 4 and... yes... strikingly similar!"

And, without even cracking the book, Grimace figures that the Late War had a strong textual influence on the Book of Mormon, as allegedly evinced in some of the parallels mentioned on this thread by people who have cracked the books.  Grimace said, "there exists a probability that can not be ignored - Joseph Smith Jr. may have had exposure to this book. Combine that with the parallels that are apparent, and the endorsement of the book by one Samuel L. Mitchell, and it's hard to view as mere coincidence."

For my part, I read through the first two chapters of Late War and found no meaningful similarities between it and the Book of Mormon. But, that may just be my inability to pick up on patterns.

And, so, I thought it would be helpful to go verse by verse through both books and have these good folks point out the dumbfounding and uncanny and striking similarities in writing styles, phrasing, concepts, subjects, content, language, .themes,  and parallels. (See my next post)
 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[WmLaw]

I have no problem agreeing to this plausible explanation. Imagine, however, that instead of copying long passages, he opened the book to random pages and selected only a set of three to four words to copy. Were it I, I might do it two or three times and then realize that it was a total waste of time. It is much easier to make up such phrases than to physically find and copy them.

Strawman

[phaedrus ut]

For my part, I read through the first two chapters of Late War and found no meaningful similarities between it and the Book of Mormon. But, that may just be my inability to pick up on patterns.

 

Congratulations, that means you read 5.5 pages of the text.  Apparently that was enough analysis to give you the confidence to post 11 times on this thread about your conclusions.  The 53 chapters you didn't read have some really interesting content.  Give it a try, you might find something interesting. 

 

Phaedrus

[phaedrus ut]

I have no problem agreeing to this plausible explanation. Imagine, however, that instead of copying long passages, he opened the book to random pages and selected only a set of three to four words to copy. Were it I, I might do it two or three times and then realize that it was a total waste of time. It is much easier to make up such phrases than to physically find and copy them.

 

in your hypothetical scenario referring to opening the KJV to randomly select words or opening "Late War" and doing the same thing?

[Calm]

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.

I think it is pretty obvious why many are seeing it this way since the study results are presented as a list of certain words and phrases.

[jkwilliams]

I think it is pretty obvious why many are seeing it this way since the study results are presented as a list of certain words and phrases.

True, but I'm not referring to the study itself.

[Calm]

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.

 Rather melodramatic conclusion, imo.

 

So, we will have to wait for the revelation of the complete methods and results to be analyzed and disected to find out just how good or not they are.

 

Glenn

What! Wait for an explanation of methodology and for a study of significance to be done before drawing any conclusions! Surely you jest!

[Calm]

True, but I'm not referring to the study itself.

So now that the study has identified a potential book (btw there always will be a book in any comparison that is most like another whether the list it is compared to is 2 or 2 million, the question for me is whether that comparison results in significant findings or not), one can dispense with any scientific process and go off of gut reaction to the book?

I am not sure what you are saying, but it does appear to be what many are doing. And if so, how is this different than any number of other books that have been claimed to be sources and then people feel that the content sure looks like what the BoM holds? I would be more impressed if there was some evidence of textual analysis (if that is the right term) of the content and themes instead of jumping off of a study that appears at this point to me to be incomplete based on what one of the authors has said here.

Why bother referring to the study at all in this thread if it is not about the study itself?

Edited October 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[pmccombs1]

 

To summarize the discussion so far, after comparing the "Late War" with the Book of Mormon, cognitiveharmony said, ....

 

 

You missed the part of the discussion where it was claimed that a computer algorithm discovered similarities using a statistical model.

 

...
And, so, I thought it would be helpful to go verse by verse through both books and have these good folks point out the dumbfounding and uncanny and striking similarities in writing styles, phrasing, concepts, subjects, content, language, .themes,  and parallels. (See my next post)
 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

You might start with Rick Grunder's work on parallels between the BoM and The Late War, published five years ago, before any computer algorithms independently suggested that we might be interested in comparing these two books.

 

Grunder has apparently read Hunt's work multiple times, and he does indeed find themes and content that he thinks constitute "parallels." He also presents a chiasm from the Hunt book and tackles the issue of Hebraisms, taking the list and pointing out examples from the Hunt text.

 

He is clearly critical of the BoM, but he has done some study of the complete Hunt text, apparently. At any rate, he thinks he has found a book from the same era as the BoM, which nobody claims is an inspired text, that also employs chiasmus,Hebraisms, and other such devices that apologists often point to as evidence for the divine origin of the BoM.

[why me]

I've said several times in this thread why I think it's important. I read the whole book, and I'm still working through a lot of conclusions, but I can say that, at least on first read, this book is quite illuminating as to the style and content choices in the Book of Mormon. Some characteristics of the Book of Mormon that have been touted as evidence of antiquity also show up in the Hunt book, meaning that at least some of these bullseyes are a lot less remarkable than previously thought.

 

 

 

However, it is amazing that Joseph could do all this with his head in a hat. Truly amazing. I don't think that such a feat will ever be copied. How did he do it? Plus, we have the 11 people who actually saw the plates and 8 people handling them. So, not only do we have a hat trick, we also have a plates trick with signed testimonies. And so, something is not right here.