Could the Book of Mormon be a 17th Century pious fraud?

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

JarMan, curious what you think of the Book of Mormon's treatment of Columbus. Since it was Columbus Day the other day, or was Columbus Day which hopefully will be changed to  "Indigenous People's Day", was mentioned on another board as being so 19th century. Why would God condone a man like Columbus. And better yet why did we even give this dude the time of day in American history, so disappointing that we fell for this guy. Or was this something JS added? 

Which ones of the indigenous peoples do we wish to idolize? The ones that practiced human sacrifice, or the ones that flayed a man alive, or the ones that roasted enemies alive, or the ones that practiced cannibalism, or the ones that tied enemies down on ant hills? 

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

It was at a conference at BYU two or three years ago. I think it's on YouTube. Several from their research team presented including Carmack and a female. Forgot her name but her presentation was also interesting. 

 

Thanks. I found the link. The relevant discussion begins at 44:50. 

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

So I read your original post and although you believe the Book of Mormon is true true you hypothesize about the possibility that it could actually be.a pious fraud because some of the wicked people in the Book of Mormon executed their enemies by fire. Why is it so hard to believe some of the wicked people in the Book of Mormon would execute their enemies by fire? And why does the practice have to somehow be connectedto the European Christianity when the Bible is filled with examples of people being executed by fire? The Old Testament contains many examples of the Lord slaying the wicked by fire. It also contains prophecies that the Lord will destroy the wicked by fire. The sacrifices of the temple were also consumed by fire. There are also Old Testament examples of the wicked using fire as a form of capital punishment and as a means of sacrificing human lives to idolatrous gods, such as the children of Baal worshippers who were often slain as human sacrifices by fire. The Book of Mormon people's had the brass plates of Laban and therefore would have been well aware of all the Old Testament's many examples human death by fire.

Not a few ot the people who were trapped in the twin towers on 9/11 jumped from extremely high heights to their deaths rather than burn to death. Everybody knows about the dreadful and terrifyingly destructive power of fire, so why is it hard to believe that the wicked people of the Book of Mormon were aware of the obvious universal fear of fire and in acts of terrorism harnessed it toward their evil ends?

Why put even more doubts in the minds of the wavering over something that isn't hard to believe at all? The wicked people of the Book of Mormon betimes executed those who refused to think as they do with fire. Why should this be hard to believe? Why unnecessarily connect this practice to European Christianity and needlessly minister doubts?

For me the Book of Mormon is an enigma. It's profoundly changed my life for the better, but a careful reading of it leaves me with significant questions about how it was produced. There are seeming anachronisms that can't be easily explained. And I would say the biggest mystery for me is the heavy dependence on the King James Bible. I can't imagine any model of Book of Mormon production that doesn't involve serious understanding and utter reliance on the KJB. I started this discussion after following for some time smac97's recent thread about inspired fiction vs the witnesses. There are several notable participants in that thread who discuss the inspired fiction model without utter revulsion. Not that they support it, necessarily, but I get the feeling they too are trying to puzzle through the mysteries. That's what I'm doing…puzzling through the mysteries. For me right now, that means looking for 16th Century connections to the Book of Mormon. Churchistrue lead me to a Skousen talk (which I linked to above) showing a high degree of agreement with what I've been saying. The key is that the people burned in the Book of Mormon were burned for heresy and not for some other random reason. That's what connects it to medieval Europe. I'm kind of bummed I'm not the first to notice this connection, but at the same time it's nice to know I'm in good company. And btw I'm open to less conventional theories like a 16th or 17th Century translation that was "managed" over time. I have some more 16th Century correspondences that I will post later when I have a chance.

Edited October 11, 2017 by JarMan

[JarMan]

nvm 

Edited October 11, 2017 by JarMan

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

And btw I'm open to less conventional theories like a 16th or 17th Century translation that was "managed" over time.

We get into a time machine and travel back to 1620. Apart from the 19th century spellings and other artifacts from the 19th century dictation/translation, is there anything in the Book of Mormon that would be out of place?

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, JarMan said:

The key is that the people burned in the Book of Mormon were burned for heresy and not for some other random reason.

Why do you key on two instances of burning when there are at least ten references to stoning because of religious differences in the Book of Mormon?

Also, you just might wish to go back and read some of the 16th century texts to get an idea how how text originating in that era would most likely read.

Glenn

[Bobbieaware]

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

For me the Book of Mormon is an enigma. It's profoundly changed my life for the better, but a careful reading of it leaves me with significant questions about how it was produced. There are seeming anachronisms that can't be easily explained. And I would say the biggest mystery for me is the heavy dependence on the King James Bible. I can't imagine any model of Book of Mormon production that doesn't involve serious understanding and utter reliance on the KJB. I started this discussion after following for some time smac97's recent thread about inspired fiction vs the witnesses. There are several notable participants in that thread who discuss the inspired fiction model without utter revulsion. Not that they support it, necessarily, but I get the feeling they too are trying to puzzle through the mysteries. That's what I'm doing…puzzling through the mysteries. For me right now, that means looking for 16th Century connections to the Book of Mormon. Churchistrue lead me to a Skousen talk (which I linked to above) showing a high degree of agreement with what I've been saying. The key is that the people burned in the Book of Mormon were burned for heresy and not for some other random reason. That's what connects it to medieval Europe. I'm kind of bummed I'm not the first to notice this connection, but at the same time it's nice to know I'm in good company. And btw I'm open to less conventional theories like a 16th or 17th Century translation that was "managed" over time. I have some more 16th Century correspondences that I will post later when I have a chance.

This is what happens when someone looks for proof for the Book of Mormon's divine authenticity outside of the Book of Mormon's own prescribed way of gaining a witness of its truthfulness. The Lord has allowed the apparent mysteries and perplexities concerning the Book of Mormon to exist in order to try our faith. He allows these things to exist by design to test us to see if we will trust in the revelations of the Holy Ghost or if we will waver in faith, succumb to doubt, and take a few steps away from the tree of life in search of empirical proofs beyond the powerfully convincing revelations of truth provided by the Spirit of God. It trust the revelations of the Spirit I have received through acting on Moroni's promise. The revelations of the Holy Ghost are much more powerful and convincing evidence than anything else the arm of flesh might provide.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Darren10]

6 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

This is what happens when someone looks for proof for the Book of Mormon's divine authenticity outside of the Book of Mormon's own prescribed way of gaining a witness of its truthfulness. The Lord has allowed the apparent mysteries and perplexities concerning the Book of Mormon to exist in order to try our faith. He allows these things to be by design to see if we will trust in the revelations of the Holy Ghost or if we will waver in faith and take a few steps away from the tree of life in search of empirical proofs beyond the revelations of truth provided by the Spirit of God. It trust the revelations of the Spirit I have received through acting on Moroni's promise. The revelations of the Holy Ghost are much more powerful and convincing evidence than anything else the arm of flesh might provide.

"The revelations of the Holy Ghost are much more powerful and convincing evidence than anything else the arm of flesh might provide." - Amen to that!

[churchistrue]

8 hours ago, JarMan said:

 

Thanks. I found the link. The relevant discussion begins at 44:50. 

It's quite a presentation. I was kind of freaking out at the time that he was actually suggesting the same thing you are, a 16th century pious fraud/deep expansion. I think it's crazy pants, tbh. But I agree the BOM is an enigma, and it's fun to look at any and all possible explanations. 

[Gray]

Has anyone read this response to Skousen's hypothesis?

https://blog.nocoolnametom.com/them-archaic-english-forms/

His ideas seem plausible. But I imagine finding other similar books (written during the same time/place by someone less educated) to find evidence of similar language might be a challenge. I doubt many rural New York farmers were writing books in the early 19th century, and anything that was edited by someone more educated might have lost its rural flavor.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Gray

[churchistrue]

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

For me the Book of Mormon is an enigma. It's profoundly changed my life for the better, but a careful reading of it leaves me with significant questions about how it was produced. There are seeming anachronisms that can't be easily explained. And I would say the biggest mystery for me is the heavy dependence on the King James Bible. I can't imagine any model of Book of Mormon production that doesn't involve serious understanding and utter reliance on the KJB. I started this discussion after following for some time smac97's recent thread about inspired fiction vs the witnesses. There are several notable participants in that thread who discuss the inspired fiction model without utter revulsion. Not that they support it, necessarily, but I get the feeling they too are trying to puzzle through the mysteries. That's what I'm doing…puzzling through the mysteries. For me right now, that means looking for 16th Century connections to the Book of Mormon. Churchistrue lead me to a Skousen talk (which I linked to above) showing a high degree of agreement with what I've been saying. The key is that the people burned in the Book of Mormon were burned for heresy and not for some other random reason. That's what connects it to medieval Europe. I'm kind of bummed I'm not the first to notice this connection, but at the same time it's nice to know I'm in good company. And btw I'm open to less conventional theories like a 16th or 17th Century translation that was "managed" over time. I have some more 16th Century correspondences that I will post later when I have a chance.

Agree on the first half of what you say. I'm no scholar, but I put up some of my thoughts that were result of wordprint analysis and learning from others like Carmack-Skousen on the KJV-BOM connection.  http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/king-james-bible-language-in-the-book-of-mormon/

The KJV is heavily influencing the BOM, it's very difficult to think that the author did not have either such a deep familiarity with the KJV that thousands of phrases were memorized and just came to mind during writing the BOM. Or that the author spent years in production (seems more likely).

It's also clear that the intertextuality not only affects word choice but affects entire story lines, ie Nephi-Exodus, Paul's thorn-Moroni's weakness, etc. So, that completely rules out any kind of tight translation for me, unless it's a tight translation of a fictional/expanded text.

The other remarkable thing which Skousen-Carmack also identify is how the KJV phrases are combined. I show example of a couple verses that included 8 or 9 unique KJV phrases from a variety of books Old Testament and New. With your college education and 20 years studying both the Bible and the BOM, try to write an interesting new verse of scripture artfully combining 9 unique KJV phrases. You could probably do it, but it might take you an hour and google. That's one verse. If nothing, the BOM is a remarkable human achievement.

I can't go where you go in your second half, because it just seems implausible for so many reasons. I actually think the best theory is the Rigdon-Spalding. Where Rigdon took a historical narrative (think all of Moroni's third person writing) and then over a 10 year time period, carefully masseged it, injecting the sermons of King Benjamin, Alma, Abinadi, etc. This would have been done with the KJV open and doing meticulous cross referencing and research, which would take a long time, and probably need to have been done by someone more experienced and educated than Joseph. But then I admit the conspiracy necessary for this is equally implausible. Conspiracies are hard to keep secret for two weeks let alone 200 years. 

 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Has anyone read this response to Skousen's hypothesis?

https://blog.nocoolnametom.com/them-archaic-english-forms/

His ideas seem sound. But I imagine finding other similar books (written during the same time/place by someone less educated) to find evidence of similar language might be a challenge. I doubt many rural New York farmers were writing books in the early 19th century, and anything that was edited by someone more educated might have lost its rural flavor.

Stanford Carmack has long been aware of that untested premise. He has actually tested the hypothesis on the 1832 history authored by Joseph. Here is the synopsis:
"Abstract: Some of the grammar of Joseph Smith’s 1832 History is examined. Three archaic, extra-biblical features that occur quite frequently in the Book of Mormon are not present in the history, even though there was ample opportunity for use. Relevant usage in the 1832 History is typical of modern English, in line with independent linguistic studies. This leads to the conclusion that Joseph’s grammar was not archaizing in these three types of morphosyntax which are prominent in the earliest text of the Book of Mormon. This corroborating evidence also indicates that English words were transmitted to Joseph throughout the dictation of the Book of Mormon."

The full article can be found at:

 http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/how-joseph-smiths-grammar-differed-from-book-of-mormon-grammar-evidence-from-the-1832-history/

The author of the article to you have linked also has Joseph speaking in some sort of drawl which would seem illogical considering that he was from the New England area which has no history of southern type drawls that I am aware of.

Glenn

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Which ones of the indigenous peoples do we wish to idolize? The ones that practiced human sacrifice, or the ones that flayed a man alive, or the ones that roasted enemies alive, or the ones that practiced cannibalism, or the ones that tied enemies down on ant hills? 

http://www.indigenouspeople.net/  Because they were in the country before Columbus, so give them credit. Of course there were bad people but they were here first, not Columbus. We skipped over that apparently in our history books and failed to concentrate on their ways of life and learn from them.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Tacenda

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Stanford Carmack has long been aware of that untested premise. He has actually tested the hypothesis on the 1832 history authored by Joseph. Here is the synopsis:
"Abstract: Some of the grammar of Joseph Smith’s 1832 History is examined. Three archaic, extra-biblical features that occur quite frequently in the Book of Mormon are not present in the history, even though there was ample opportunity for use. Relevant usage in the 1832 History is typical of modern English, in line with independent linguistic studies. This leads to the conclusion that Joseph’s grammar was not archaizing in these three types of morphosyntax which are prominent in the earliest text of the Book of Mormon. This corroborating evidence also indicates that English words were transmitted to Joseph throughout the dictation of the Book of Mormon."

The full article can be found at:

 http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/how-joseph-smiths-grammar-differed-from-book-of-mormon-grammar-evidence-from-the-1832-history/

The author of the article to you have linked also has Joseph speaking in some sort of drawl which would seem illogical considering that he was from the New England area which has no history of southern type drawls that I am aware of.

Glenn

Interesting, thanks.

I wonder if the unusual frequency of, for example, the use of "which" after personal antecedents, are exaggerations of the most archaic sounding language of the KJV? Per the article, the KJV uses that formulation only 12% of the time, but in trying to sound "ancient" the translator could have chosen the most archaic-sounding language from the KJV that he could think of. In trying to imitate Biblical language, I've observed that people often overuse and misuse archaic KJV language when they try to take on that "voice."

Just a thought.

[Nevo]

8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

We get into a time machine and travel back to 1620. Apart from the 19th century spellings and other artifacts from the 19th century dictation/translation, is there anything in the Book of Mormon that would be out of place?

The references to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in 2 Nephi 3, the numerous passages referring to the loss of the 116 pages, anti-universalism, republican ideology, anti-Masonry...

Edited October 11, 2017 by Nevo

[Glenn101]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.indigenouspeople.net/  Because they were in the country before Columbus, so give them credit. Of course there were bad people but they were here first, not Columbus. We skipped over that apparently in our history books and failed to concentrate on their ways of life and learn from them.

History is a subjective subject and we see it through the lens of our current texts and out past texts if we are wont to invest the time. But, on point, why replace Columbus Day with Indigenous People's Day? Just because they were here when Columbus showed up and Columbus now is a "bad person?" We honor Columbus not because he discovered America (he actually did not) but because he was in the vanguard of people that went against the superstitions of his day and had the courage to sail off into uncharted seas in search of a better way to the East Indies. He was an explorer and brought back news that helped excite and open up the minds of others to the possibilities that might be afforded in a newly discovered land. If we follow this trend towards its logical conclusion the memory of a vast number of contributors to the American epic will be erased for no other reason than they have been discovered to have some serious flaws. That is happening in North Carolina as the name of Charles B. Aycock is being removed from various places despite major contributions to the North Carolina Educational System because he was a racist. Do we want to impeach past presidents posthumously because they also were racist and some owned slaves?

[churchistrue]

8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

We get into a time machine and travel back to 1620. Apart from the 19th century spellings and other artifacts from the 19th century dictation/translation, is there anything in the Book of Mormon that would be out of place?

Even Skousen-Carmack admit there is. Their theory is that the text was massaged or updated from 17th to 19th century. 

See a little bit of an exploration I did on this here.  http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/19th-century-protestant-phrases-in-book-of-mormon/

 

 

[Glenn101]

41 minutes ago, Gray said:

Interesting, thanks.

I wonder if the unusual frequency of, for example, the use of "which" after personal antecedents, are exaggerations of the most archaic sounding language of the KJV? Per the article, the KJV uses that formulation only 12% of the time, but in trying to sound "ancient" the translator could have chosen the most archaic-sounding language from the KJV that he could think of. In trying to imitate Biblical language, I've observed that people often overuse and misuse archaic KJV language when they try to take on that "voice."

Just a thought.

If that were the case it should show up in other texts of the era that sought to mimic the King James language such as "The Late War between the United States and Great Britain" by Gilbert Hunt. According to Carmack that is not the case.

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2016/book-mormon-critical-text-project

Glenn

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

If that were the case it should show up in other texts of the era that sought to mimic the King James language such as "The Late War between the United States and Great Britain" by Gilbert Hunt. According to Carmack that is not the case.

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2016/book-mormon-critical-text-project

Glenn

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the individual choices of the person who is writing in that style. There are instances in the BOM where the translator seems to prefer more archaic terms, even when grammatically incorrect.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Gray

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

This is what happens when someone looks for proof for the Book of Mormon's divine authenticity outside of the Book of Mormon's own prescribed way of gaining a witness of its truthfulness. The Lord has allowed the apparent mysteries and perplexities concerning the Book of Mormon to exist in order to try our faith. He allows these things to exist by design to test us to see if we will trust in the revelations of the Holy Ghost or if we will waver in faith, succumb to doubt, and take a few steps away from the tree of life in search of empirical proofs beyond the powerfully convincing revelations of truth provided by the Spirit of God. It trust the revelations of the Spirit I have received through acting on Moroni's promise. The revelations of the Holy Ghost are much more powerful and convincing evidence than anything else the arm of flesh might provide.

You are making incorrect assumptions about the basis of my testimony of the Book of Mormon. One of the miracles of the Book of Mormon is that different people can take different approaches to studying it, and still be profoundly affected and changed by it.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

The references to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in 2 Nephi 3, the numerous passages referring to the loss of the 116 pages, anti-universalism, republican ideology, anti-Masonry...

I agree with 1 and 2, not sure about 3, disagree with 4 and 5. Skousen addresses number 5 at the end of the video I linked to earlier.

[clarkgoble]

(Haven't read all the replies yet)

Quote

A lot of effort has gone into showing nineteenth century elements in the Book of Mormon, but in light of recent work by Skousen and Carmack I wonder if we should be looking for 16th or 17 century elements instead. 

I'll confess I was pretty skeptical of Carmack's conclusions but he rather nicely provided his data sources here and methodology. I'm not sure what to make of it and it doesn't sound like he is too. The problem of course is that if it was a 17th century forgery that makes things even more difficult for critics, not easier.

Quote

Also, the Spanish Inquisition is known to have held mass burnings of heretics in the 15th and 16th centuries called auto-da-fe.

As with any parallel the question is the period you are looking at.  A big problem with a 15th or 16th century forgery is that it completely undermines say all the elements Vogel brings up for a forgery. So even if you buy this parallel, realize that you've undermined most of the traditional parallels critics appeal to.

With regards to faithful defenses of course finding burning of heretics or enemies is rather common in the ancient world. Brant Gardner of course has pointed out various mesoamerican parallels to these narratives. Flayling and burning victims by the Aztecs is of course well known. (Not that the Aztecs are the proper era - but it highlights the traditions broadly speaking)

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

Even Skousen-Carmack admit there is. Their theory is that the text was massaged or updated from 17th to 19th century. 

See a little bit of an exploration I did on this here.  http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/19th-century-protestant-phrases-in-book-of-mormon/

Just to note that you'll need a null hypothesis of such phrases from the 17th century, which I don't believe you did. I'd suggest utilizing the corpus that Carmack used to search for his grammatical issues.

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

The references to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in 2 Nephi 3, the numerous passages referring to the loss of the 116 pages, anti-universalism, republican ideology, anti-Masonry...

Note we have to be careful here. Finding parallels isn't the same as elements that would be out of place. That's why the critic/apologist battle between parallels from different contexts ultimately doesn't avail too much. The 116 pages passage of course would be difficult for a 17th century forgery to address although could be fixed with an additional "added epicenter"  by postulating a modification to the forgery by Joseph Smith consciously forging with a pre-existing forgery. Anti-universalism is much older than the 19th century and the Rosicrucians controversy parallel in loose ways the anti-Masonry of early 19th century. 

My point being that first off most parallels aren't as significant as they seem when you start asking if similar parallels could be found in numerous settings. Secondly we shouldn't assume parallels don't exist if you're not familiar with the purported claimed new setting for translation and/or forgery.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Quote

We get into a time machine and travel back to 1620. Apart from the 19th century spellings and other artifacts from the 19th century dictation/translation, is there anything in the Book of Mormon that would be out of place?

Oh certainly. There is more than a little vocabulary that is out of place in 1620.

northernmost, collected, cleared, mysterious, concerned, overpowering, overpowereth, checked (as in stopped - the other meaning of checkered is old enough), overbearance ...

Do I need to do more?

The problem is that, despite the appearance of 17th century language in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon is not a 17th century text.

I mean .... maybe it's a 19th century "translation" of a 17th century text ....

Edited October 11, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire

[churchistrue]

24 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Just to note that you'll need a null hypothesis of such phrases from the 17th century, which I don't believe you did. I'd suggest utilizing the corpus that Carmack used to search for his grammatical issues.

 

Agree. Until work is done, it's nothing more than an "oh that's interesting". I wish I had the time and interest and competency to take the research further, but I really don't.