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

[JarMan]

41 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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)

It's not enough to find ancient people burning others as a form of punishment. That seems to be ubiquitous throughout history. The key here is that in the Book of Mormon there are three separate incidents where people were burned specifically for heresy. From the context, these three separate incidents killed at least dozens of people, but perhaps hundreds or even thousands. Burning heretics - particularly en masse - is a uniquely medieval European practice. I would be very interested if you could find a single incident of mass burning of heretics outside of say, 1100-1600 Christian Europe. 

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Anti-universalism is much older than the 19th century...

I'm not sure what you have in mind here. Certainly, the idea of God eventually saving everyone goes at least as far back as Origen. But the Book of Mormon seems to be reacting specifically to the early nineteenth-century debate between Universalists and their opponents (esp. Methodists)—which reached its apogee in western NY in the 1820s. I discuss the topic in more detail in this post: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67765-the-state-of-the-evidence/?do=findComment&comment=1209639979. 

For a fuller treatment, see Stephen Clarke, "'Do Ye Suppose that Mercy Can Rob Justice?': The Universalism Debate and Book of Mormon Soteriology," in Archive of Restoration Culture: Summer Fellows’ Papers, 1997-1999 [Provo, UT: Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History, 2000],  155–166. See also, Dan Vogel, "Anti-Universalist Rhetoric in the Book of Mormon", in Brent Lee Met­calfe, ed., New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 21–53, and Clyde D. Ford, "The Book of Mormon, the Early Nineteenth-Century Debates over Universalism, and the Development of the Novel Mormon Doctrines of Ultimate Rewards and Punishments," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 47, no. 1 (Spring 2014): 1–23.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Nevo

[JarMan]

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

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

The references to stoning mostly seem to be biblical references to past prophets who were stoned. The other times stoning is mentioned, it is not used as an execution method, but as a way to intimidate people and make them leave. I couldn't find a single person in the Book of Mormon that was executed by stoning for any reason. But I just did a quick search so maybe you have an example you can point me to. I should also point out that burning wasn't the only way heretics were killed in medieval Europe. But it does seem to be the primary method used, particularly for large groups of heretics. (I cited three references to burning heretics. One was a single person (Abinadi). And also two separate instances where many people were killed simultaneously or over a fairly short period of time.)

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

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?

They should have a Explorer's day as well as a Heritage day so we can celebrate those who push past boundaries and those who built communities and nations together.

[JarMan]

My next correlation between 16th Century Europe and the Book of Mormon is the nature of church-state relations. I don't think we ever see a truly secular government (in the American model of a wall of separation between church and state) among any of the Book of Mormon peoples. The Nephite kings and judges are almost exclusively prophets or high-ranking members of the church. Towards the end of the reign of the judges when the judges keep getting killed it's difficult to tell what exactly is going on with church-state relations. But based on what we do know I don't think the fundamental assumption of the Book of Mormon writers ever changes. The fundamental assumption is that the state leader should also be a religious leader in the sense that he is holy and righteously lives the religion. The state leader also grants permission for the church to operate and ordain ministers and protects the church's operations with state power. In other words, it is necessary and desirable to have a state church. The necessity of having a state church is a fundamental assumption of 16th Century Europeans, even the reformers. And it should go without saying that a state religion would have been anti-thetical to an 1820's America political view.

Mosiah2 introduced some reforms in the church-state dichotomy. When Alma brought misbehaving church members to him, Mosiah told him to judge them and excommunicate them if they didn't repent. This was apparently a novel idea for Alma whose assumption seemed to be that the government should punish people for disobeying the religious law. Mosiah's actions are very similar to the type of reform that was being proposed  by Calvinists and some Anabaptists during the 16th Century. But I should stress again the fact that Mosiah's reform didn't go nearly as far as what Joseph Smith would have been familiar with.

Mosiah's major reform, of course, was his idea that the people should have a system of judges instead of a king, which was implemented when he died. Shrewd observers have pointed out that the chief judge seemed to act as a king after all. He had the power of all three branches of government and was selected by hereditary succession. So what was really different? There was the concept that a judge could be removed by a small council of other judges. But we never see this play out in the Book of Mormon. I think the real difference (and it's one I rarely see mentioned) is that the system of judges divided the kingdom into several independent, but loosely-confederated, polities. Zarahemla had a chief judge. But the Zarahemla chief judge was not the chief judge over, for instance, Ammonihah which was a Nephite city with it's own chief judge. It's the Ammonihah chief judge, incidentally, that apparently approved the mass burning of Alma's and Amulek's converts and their scriptures. So apparently he had significant power to act independently.

You might be tempted to correlate this system of loosely-confederated but independent judgeships to the American idea of federalism. But the idea of federalism didn't spring up in a vaccuum in the 1700's. (And there are major differences such as the lack of a centralized government with limited but significant powers.) So let's look to 16th Century Europe. A practically universal fear among the various 16th Century reformers was the enormous power of the Pope and of the emperor in forcing religious uniformity. In the Book of Mormon the system of judgeships was specifically designed to prevent a powerful authority from dictating (the wrong) religion to the people. The result was that different Nephite lands had different religions. This played out similarly to the principle of cuius regio, eius religio, a 16th Century idea codified at the Diet of Augsburg in 1555 that allowed individual rulers to choose their own state religion. In other words, implementing the system of judgeships in the Book of Mormon was partially about taking the decision of which state religion to practice from a powerful king over all the people, and giving it to smaller "kingdoms" (polities under a system of judges) to decide for themselves. This is quintessential 16th Century reformist thought.

Edited October 11, 2017 by JarMan

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

Would that not be more subconscious that deliberate?

 

[RevTestament]

On 10/10/2017 at 12:37 PM, JarMan said:

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. Personally, I favor Joseph Smith's own explanation for how the Book of Mormon came to be, though I am interested in the expansion theory as a way to explain some apparent anachronisms. I can't buy into a pious fraud model because I don't think it's possible JS could have possibly produced the book. However, a 16th or 17th century pious fraud model is more interesting to me because it allows for a person (or persons) to have labored for years to produce the Book of Mormon and it accounts for the Early Modern English in the text. Admittedly it may present more problems than it solves, but I have been looking into several things in the Book of Mormon that seem to point to the late 16th or early 17th century. I have several examples but I will just give one for now to generate some discussion.

I just can't go there. I'm definitely in the "creates more problems than it solves camp." Yeah, Joseph Smith's father, and others slaved away on this book for years just so they can give it to some sinning, treasure-minded child to bring forth, and his family all went along with this plan.... it's completely ludicrous. Critics know better to come up with something so totally absurd.

[JarMan]

21 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I just can't go there. I'm definitely in the "creates more problems than it solves camp." Yeah, Joseph Smith's father, and others slaved away on this book for years just so they can give it to some sinning, treasure-minded child to bring forth, and his family all went along with this plan.... it's completely ludicrous. Critics know better to come up with something so totally absurd.

I'm not sure you are understanding the basis of the discussion. You may want to read through the entire thread to get a better idea. 

[Glenn101]

11 minutes ago, JarMan said:

This is quintessential 16th Century reformist thought.

Do you have some references for this? I am assuming that you are mainly speaking of English reformist thought. However this does not seem to fit the times that prevailed in 16th century England. That era saw the revolt against the Roman Catholic Church by Henry VIII because he wanted to divorce his current wife Catherine and marry Ann Boleyn. There was a period of turmoil after the death of Henry then his son Edward, and them Mary Stewart, a Catholic, and finally Queen Elizabeth I with Elizabeth being crowned Queen and putting down a Catholic rebellion, making the Anglican church the state church. I am unsure what reformation thoughts were being voiced at the time. That is what I need some information on. It seems that most of the reformist thoughts were concentrated on the religious side and I have never had a sense that there was a thought of a separation of church and state. Those reformers wanted religious reform, but still wanted their religious reforms to have the sanction of the state to the detriment of any opposing views.

The seventeenth century saw the rise of a few different Protestant religions and the conflict that followed with the state religion. It may have been there that ideas of the separation of church and state began to sprout. I just do not see it in sixteenth century England, but I am willing to be convinced.

Glenn

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Would that not be more subconscious that deliberate?

 

Probably. It's the unfamiliar language that seems to stick out the most about KJV; when people imitate it they tend to reach for those unfamiliar and strange-sounding parts, almost reflexively.

Obviously I'm not trying to put out some kind of academic argument here, just personal observations.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Nevo said:

I'm not sure what you have in mind here. Certainly, the idea of God eventually saving everyone goes at least as far back as Origen. But the Book of Mormon seems to be reacting specifically to the early nineteenth-century debate between Universalists and their opponents (esp. Methodists)—which reached its apogee in western NY in the 1820s. I discuss the topic in more detail in this post: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67765-the-state-of-the-evidence/?do=findComment&comment=1209639979. 

But the debate goes back earlier too. So when you raise the idea of universalist theology in Origen or others you have to then engage with the reality that this theology was debated and rejected. To only look at the 19th century is insufficient unless one can show it wasn't present in earlier debates over the ideas - not just by Origen but also Gregory of Nyssa, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and many others. Most particularly though you have to engage the attacks on those espousing such views especially by figures like Augustine and most famously the Synod at Constantinople in 543. (Although the latter only refers to duration)

One problem in your linked discussion you conflate phrases used in discussing the content with the content itself. Also one of your key points is to note that the argument is "God, whose nature is Love . . . will finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness and happiness." But that's exactly Gregory's whole argument! Indeed most of the 19th century debate arises out of the same fundamental theological concerns and texts as earlier debates did. Those debates developed for a reason after all. To the degree the Book of Mormon shares those texts and theologies then such debates is rather natural. Add in surrounding religions with different beliefs regarding salvation and it's completely natural such debates would arise. The fundamental issue as I see it isn't that these debates happened, but upon what texts and theological commitments the debate hinges upon. Now if you want to accuse the Book of Mormon of anachronism the real debate is whether there was a notion of salvation in 6th century Judaism akin to what Nephi claims. The universalist debate is really a red herring due to the nature of the argument.

I certainly don't object to arguments of how a 19th century person would read the Book of Mormon. Particularly if one is already defending a fraud model. However if one is arguing that such debates are anachronistic then one simply has to engage with the ancient debates and more particularly the foundational scriptural texts that incentivized such debates.

Edited October 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

It's not enough to find ancient people burning others as a form of punishment. That seems to be ubiquitous throughout history. The key here is that in the Book of Mormon there are three separate incidents where people were burned specifically for heresy. From the context, these three separate incidents killed at least dozens of people, but perhaps hundreds or even thousands. Burning heretics - particularly en masse - is a uniquely medieval European practice. I would be very interested if you could find a single incident of mass burning of heretics outside of say, 1100-1600 Christian Europe. 

I'd first say that I think the Book of Mormon narratives particularly that of the Zoramite sacrifices are more nuanced than you allow. It's not explicitly for heresy but for aligning with the Nephite preachers. (A subtle but important distinction) And that certainly was a common basis for human sacrifice. But even if the practice wasn't exactly the same as Aztec practice, why should we assume it would be? We're talking about a much earlier group that might have variant practices. Certainly killing heretics is rather common especially if there are political overtones (as there clearly are in the Book of Mormon text). The only question is the method of killing. If you already have a cultural tradition of burning alive enemies as human sacrifice, the bigger question is why wouldn't they kill the Zoramite converts in this fashion?

Edited October 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Avatar4321]

No

[Nevo]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I certainly don't object to arguments of how a 19th century person would read the Book of Mormon. Particularly if one is already defending a fraud model. However if one is arguing that such debates are anachronistic then one simply has to engage with the ancient debates and more particularly the foundational scriptural texts that incentivized such debates.

As far as I know, there was no Universalist movement gaining momentum ca. 1620 and the patristic debates were long over by then. So, yes, I am arguing that it is anachronistic in the 16th and 17th centuries. Western New York in the 1820s offers a much more plausible Sitz im Leben for the Nephite debate than early modern England.  

[JarMan]

59 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Do you have some references for this? I am assuming that you are mainly speaking of English reformist thought. However this does not seem to fit the times that prevailed in 16th century England. That era saw the revolt against the Roman Catholic Church by Henry VIII because he wanted to divorce his current wife Catherine and marry Ann Boleyn. There was a period of turmoil after the death of Henry then his son Edward, and them Mary Stewart, a Catholic, and finally Queen Elizabeth I with Elizabeth being crowned Queen and putting down a Catholic rebellion, making the Anglican church the state church. I am unsure what reformation thoughts were being voiced at the time. That is what I need some information on. It seems that most of the reformist thoughts were concentrated on the religious side and I have never had a sense that there was a thought of a separation of church and state. Those reformers wanted religious reform, but still wanted their religious reforms to have the sanction of the state to the detriment of any opposing views.

The seventeenth century saw the rise of a few different Protestant religions and the conflict that followed with the state religion. It may have been there that ideas of the separation of church and state began to sprout. I just do not see it in sixteenth century England, but I am willing to be convinced.

Glenn

I'm not arguing that the reformists (either Nephite or European) were trying to gain separation of church and state. . .at least not in the way we would think about it. What I am saying is that both sets of reformers wanted the ability at the local level to determine the "state" religion of the polity. In the 16th Century it was the German princes that wanted to decide. In the Book of Mormon it was the people in the various lands who (through selection of their judges) wanted to decide.

[Glenn101]

38 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I'm not arguing that the reformists (either Nephite or European) were trying to gain separation of church and state. . .at least not in the way we would think about it. What I am saying is that both sets of reformers wanted the ability at the local level to determine the "state" religion of the polity. In the 16th Century it was the German princes that wanted to decide. In the Book of Mormon it was the people in the various lands who (through selection of their judges) wanted to decide.

But what has the German prince to do with 16th Century England and the conditions that existed there? There is one thing that you are doing though is to show that there are much more than nineteenth century elements in the Book of Mormon. I would not be surprised to find that if one were to look at other cultures some elements could be found in the Book of Mormon.

Which of the extant bibles in the 16th century did your pious fraud extract the copious quotes that are found in the Book of Mormon? There is the Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishop's Bible for example. How do the passages in Isaiah compare to any of those editions?

Glenn

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

I'm not sure you are understanding the basis of the discussion. You may want to read through the entire thread to get a better idea. 

Who is/are the primary authors in this theory?  How did it get to Joseph?

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

But what has the German prince to do with 16th Century England and the conditions that existed there? There is one thing that you are doing though is to show that there are much more than nineteenth century elements in the Book of Mormon. I would not be surprised to find that if one were to look at other cultures some elements could be found in the Book of Mormon.

Which of the extant bibles in the 16th century did your pious fraud extract the copious quotes that are found in the Book of Mormon? There is the Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishop's Bible for example. How do the passages in Isaiah compare to any of those editions?

Glenn

I am not looking at this from a strictly English perspective, but from a Western European perspective. And the bible would be a King James Bible.

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Who is/are the primary authors in this theory?  How did it get to Joseph?

Personally I favor a European translator with significant expansion. It gets to Joseph through the seer stone. If it's a pious fraud I don't have a good model for how it got to Joseph.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, JarMan said:

 If it's a pious fraud I don't have a good model for how it got to Joseph.

Yes, that is where I was having a hard time following the theory.

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd first say that I think the Book of Mormon narratives particularly that of the Zoramite sacrifices are more nuanced than you allow. It's not explicitly for heresy but for aligning with the Nephite preachers. (A subtle but important distinction) And that certainly was a common basis for human sacrifice. But even if the practice wasn't exactly the same as Aztec practice, why should we assume it would be? We're talking about a much earlier group that might have variant practices. Certainly killing heretics is rather common especially if there are political overtones (as there clearly are in the Book of Mormon text). The only question is the method of killing. If you already have a cultural tradition of burning alive enemies as human sacrifice, the bigger question is why wouldn't they kill the Zoramite converts in this fashion?

I think you are confusing two different episodes. In Alma 35 the Zoramites evicted the new converts from their land and then went to the war with Ammon's people after they gave the evicted Zoramites a land to live in. I'm referring to an episode in Alma 25 where the descendants of Amulon (former priest of Noah) "caused that many of the Lamanites should perish by fire because of their belief" (verse 5). The message that they were killed because of their belief is reinforced in verses 8 and 11. And once we realize the context of the mass burnings it becomes clear that it was heresy. The context, of course, is that these were the same people (culturally) who put Abinadi to death for what can only be described as heresy. As Abinadi burned he prophesied that he was a type of things to come and that their seed would put others to death in the same way "because they believe in the salvation of the Lord their God." (Mosiah 17:15). 

The only other execution by fire I am aware of in the Book of Mormon is King Noah who is burned to death by his own people. This doesn't appear to have been because of heresy, but for what might simplistically be called a failure of leadership. However, it's worth noting that King Noah's execution was done by the same culture that performed two of the other three burning-execution episodes.

The burning of heretics seems to have been related to beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church in medieval times. (A recent parallel would be execution by firing squad as a form of execution in Utah based on religious beliefs.) At any rate, this form of punishment (burning) for this particular crime (heresy) seems to be unique in the history of the world to medieval Europe (particularly on a large scale). If you can point me to any other people at any other time in history that performed mass executions of heretics I would be very interested. It seems quite extraordinary to find this exact practice in the Book of Mormon. . . and on multiple occasions.

[JarMan]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, that is where I was having a hard time following the theory.

Right. Of course that is a weakness of any pious fraud theory, not just a 17th Century one.

[Rajah Manchou]

32 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Personally I favor a European translator with significant expansion. It gets to Joseph through the seer stone. If it's a pious fraud I don't have a good model for how it got to Joseph.

Its not impossible that 300+ pages of a 16th/17th century religious text written in a strange script could end up in the hands of someone close to Joseph Smith.

In fact, it did happen.

http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/2000s/2001RBSt.htm

Samuel Mitchill compared the shorthand in the Detroit Manuscript to the shorthand found in the margin notes of a Bible dating back to the 1630s. Where did this 300+ page manuscript, used by Jesuit missionaries to proselytize Native Americans, go? 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I am not looking at this from a strictly English perspective, but from a Western European perspective. And the bible would be a King James Bible.

The problem is that the KJV was produced in the 17th century. Your pious fraud would have had to have been pretty old to have been raised in the era where the majority of the Book of Mormon Early Modern English was spoken then to have gained access to the new KJV and immersed himself into it. Such an one would likely have been more at home with one of the bibles I mentioned. That is not an impossible feat but is not very plausible.

Glenn

[JarMan]

6 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

The problem is that the KJV was produced in the 17th century. Your pious fraud would have had to have been pretty old to have been raised in the era where the majority of the Book of Mormon Early Modern English was spoken then to have gained access to the new KJV and immersed himself into it. Such an one would likely have been more at home with one of the bibles I mentioned. That is not an impossible feat but is not very plausible.

Glenn

The language issues I'm afraid are even more difficult than just the ones you've mentioned. For instance, why aren't there any 16th Century words in the Book of Mormon that were completely extinct by 1829? And what about the words in the Book of Mormon that didn't exist in the 16th Century? Perhaps the text was "managed" over time. As in first written down, say in the late 1500's, then later revised once or many times over the next hundred years or so. And since we're talking wild theories now, what if a late 16th Century writer used the Tyndale Bible, and also had an early English translation of Isaiah? Maybe one that was later used (like the Tyndale Bible was) in the King James translation effort. Couldn't that help explain the differences in the italicized words if the King James Committee decided to change the "original" ones? Wild theory, I know.  But there really isn't a model I'm aware of that makes sense of all the linguistic mysteries without wild theories.