Mormon's handbook on war and peace

[JarMan]

I've discovered Mormon's handbook on war and peace. It may shock you to find out that it was written in 1625 by a Dutchman named Hugo Grotius. It will take some time to do a systematic investigation, but from what I can tell so far, the morality of every military aspect of the Book of Mormon is addressed in this book, called "The Rights of War and Peace". This book is considered to be the basis for modern international law and was known to be prized by George Washington, among other prominent military leaders in history. The book addresses such things as when it is morally permissible to make war, the proper treatment of prisoners of war, whether revolution is ever justified, whether it's justifiable to use deceit or strategy in war, whether it is permissible to kill non-combatants, rules for engaging the enemy, when captives may be made slaves, and a whole host of other issues you will find in the Book of Mormon. This, in itself, is not the remarkable thing, though, as you might suppose that a work of this volume and magnitude (it is three books in total and draws heavily on the works of many ancient writers as well as the Bible) would describe many of the things that happen in the Book of Mormon. The truly remarkable thing is that in every case (so far as I can tell) we find perfect agreement between Mormon and Grotius regarding what is morally allowable. It is as if Mormon had a copy of this book handy while he was engraving the plates.

I'm sure you think that either I've overstated my case, or that this is just plain coincidence, or just silliness. But consider this additional information: Hugo Grotius is also the author of another book, "On the Power of Sovereigns Concerning Religious Affairs" in which he outlines the proper role of the government regarding the church. I haven't spent as much time studying this work yet, but it is already apparent to me that the ideal Nephite government was patterned after Grotius' recommendations in this work.

There's more. Grotius was an influential Arminian and was among the notable Dutchmen of his time opposed to many aspects of Calvinism (the state religion) such as predestination, the limits of the atonement, and the relationship between faith and works. The doctrine and soteriology of the Book of Mormon seem to clearly be Arminian in nature. A systematic investigation of the Book of Mormon doctrine as compared to Arminianism will also take some time, but I am convinced there is more than just a chance connection.

I'll leave you with one more thing. . . a teaser of sorts. It turns out Hugo Grotius wrote a short essay in which he speculated about the origins of the people in the Americas. He gives his theory about where both North Americans and South Americans came from. He also talks about the origins of the people of Meso-America. You'll never guess what he says about them. . .

[JarMan]

I forgot to mention that Grotius spends significant space talking about warfare against pirates and robbers, who he describes as men confederated for no other reason than to steal and plunder. His various descriptions of robbers closely corresponds with the description of the same in the Book of Mormon. 

[Rajah Manchou]

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

I'll leave you with one more thing. . . a teaser of sorts. It turns out Hugo Grotius wrote a short essay in which he speculated about the origins of the people in the Americas. He gives his theory about where both North Americans and South Americans came from. He also talks about the origins of the people of Meso-America. You'll never guess what he says about them. . .

Links...or it didn't happen.

OK, I found it. 

"Grotius held that the Americans were not a very ancient race and had come to America chiefly from Europe. He argued that all North America, except Yucatan (which had an Ethiopian stock), was peopled from the Scandinavian North; that the Peruvians were from China, and that the Moluccans peopled the regions below Peru. He deprecated the attempts of those who, like Acosta, claimed a Scythian origin, and concluded by saying: "These are the opinions I was able to gather together concerning the origin of the American peoples, partly from tradition, partly from conjecture; and if anyone has more certain opinions than these, I shall enjoy the gain of an exchange of views, and for that gain shall give him thanks."

It is interesting that he mentions the speculation going around that Yucatan was full of Jews, and that they came from the Great Tartary, and that one of the tribes was called "Nephtalitæ". 

Edited November 10, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[JarMan]

57 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Links...or it didn't happen.

OK, I found it. 

"Grotius held that the Americans were not a very ancient race and had come to America chiefly from Europe. He argued that all North America, except Yucatan (which had an Ethiopian stock), was peopled from the Scandinavian North; that the Peruvians were from China, and that the Moluccans peopled the regions below Peru. He deprecated the attempts of those who, like Acosta, claimed a Scythian origin, and concluded by saying: "These are the opinions I was able to gather together concerning the origin of the American peoples, partly from tradition, partly from conjecture; and if anyone has more certain opinions than these, I shall enjoy the gain of an exchange of views, and for that gain shall give him thanks."

It is interesting that he mentions the speculation going around that Yucatan was full of Jews, and that they came from the Great Tartary, and that one of the tribes was called "Nephtalitæ". 

From Grotius’ essay: “For as to those who possess Yucatan, and some neighbouring districts, the rite of circumcision discovered among them proves to us that they are of a different origin. Many said from this that they had been rescued from the sea, and have for that reason believed that they were Jews, forsooth of the ten tribes driven into Media;”

Grotius, however, didn’t believe the speculations that the people were Jews. He believed the people of the Yucatan were Christian Ethiopians because the Ethiopians also practiced circumcision and he saw many meso-American practices that resembled Christian rites.

Edited November 10, 2017 by JarMan

[Robert F. Smith]

So, was  the Book of Mormon originally composed or translated by the great Hugo Grotius in Dutch, and then translated into Early Modern English, and then transmitted to Joseph Smith via seerstone?

[Rajah Manchou]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, was  the Book of Mormon originally composed or translated by the great Hugo Grotius in Dutch, and then translated into Early Modern English, and then transmitted to Joseph Smith via seerstone?

Not sure if you are serious or not, but I think there is a strong case to be made for Grotius, or rather Grotius via Swedenborg. Not only did Swedenborg claim on numerous occasions to have visited angels who were in possession of a cache of the ancient spiritual texts (including the Book of Jasher and other Books of Moses), but he also draws heavily from Grotius, who also wrote of the Jewish (and Masonic) tradition of a lost magical word:



I once read a study, I think it was Vernal Holley, who found a number of phrases in the Book of Mormon that matched phrases in Swedenborg. It'd be interesting to see if some of the EModE content in the Book of Mormon is also found in Swedenborg's writings. Of course there are also the well-known theological correspondences between Swedenborg and Smith.

But from a faith perspective, my opinion is that the Book of Mormon could be included in the cache of spiritual texts that were preserved from antiquity and were translated by Swedenborg into EmodE and then passed to Smith.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[CV75]

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

I forgot to mention that Grotius spends significant space talking about warfare against pirates and robbers, who he describes as men confederated for no other reason than to steal and plunder. His various descriptions of robbers closely corresponds with the description of the same in the Book of Mormon. 

He also coined the phrase, "I am Groot" -- as he was also known as Huig de Groot (Dutch: [ˈɦœyɣ də ɣroːt]) or Hugo de Groot(Dutch: [ˈɦyɣoː də ɣroːt])... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Grotius

I think his writings can reasonably be understood as independent of those authored by the Book of Mormon prophets, as "truth is truth" no matter the source, and God inspires people according to their receptivity to His light.

Another interesting coincidence is that the region including New York was given to the British by the Dutch (they exchanged New Amsterdam / Manhattan Island for Run Island in the East Indies after the 2nd Anglo-Dutch War), and this is where the Book of Mormon was found and translated.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

.........................................................
But from a faith perspective, my opinion is that the Book of Mormon could be included in the cache of spiritual texts that were preserved from antiquity and were translated by Swedenborg into EmodE and then passed to Smith.

Yes, Swedenborg believed in three heavens: see the excellent discussion by Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 196-202, citing Emanuel Swedenborg, Treatise Concerning Heaven and Hell (1812 American ed.), Paul in I Corinthians 15:24 (telos),40-42 (“celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial,” in resurrected glories of the sun, moon, and stars), II Corinthians 12:2, and D&C 76.

Also of importance are the parallels of the life of Joseph Smith with key aspects of the life of the mythical “Christian Rosencreutz”¹ who was born and died in Jewish Sabbatical years (1378 & 1484), who traveled to the East at age 16 (1394), and translated the Book M into Latin at age 17 (1395).  His fabulous cave-tomb was opened and resealed at the end of another Sabbatical year (1604), the year of the appearance of Kepler’s novae – and a year in which Early Modern English was in use.  See F. Yates, Rosicrucian Enlightenment, 248, n. 1.

Joseph Smith was also born in a Jewish Sabbatical year, and his major life events took place in other Sabbatical years.

---

     ¹  Cf. Lance Owens,  Dialogue, 27/3 (Fall 1994), 138-139,163.

[The Nehor]

And I thought my gospel theories were crazy. Definitely closer to blasphemy but not quite this crazy. It is healthy to be humbled every so often I suppose.

[thesometimesaint]

Correlation is not causation.

Edited November 10, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[JarMan]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, was  the Book of Mormon originally composed or translated by the great Hugo Grotius in Dutch, and then translated into Early Modern English, and then transmitted to Joseph Smith via seerstone?

Grotius, like most jurists of his day, wrote primarily in Latin. He had many admirers. Like John Milton, for instance, who also knew Latin. It’s more likely the Book of Mormon was originally composed in English by an English disciple of Grotius that knew Latin, Greek, and probably Hebrew. Like Milton. But not Milton. 

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think his writings can reasonably be understood as independent of those authored by the Book of Mormon prophets, as "truth is truth" no matter the source, and God inspires people according to their receptivity to His light.

If that is true then we essentially have to concede that Mormon and Grotius were the only people who have ever been inspired by God, but we know that there are many people who have been inspired yet have come up with different "answers" to these same religious, moral, and philosophical questions. 

Besides, the ideal church-state relationship described by Grotius and Mormon are quite different than what we believe to be "truth." Grotius believes the sovereign should support the church by appointing it's leaders, among other things, and even mentions that it is sometimes ideal for the head of the state and the head of the church to be the same person. The Dutch Republic in his time was a confederacy of 7 states that each had their own government but were united in matters of defense and, in many respects, religion. One of the things Grotius fought against was national synods that decided religious orthodoxy for the entire nation. He preferred to let each of the independent states control that issue. He also believed in religious tolerance to a degree. He thought that many religious views could be tolerated within the reformed church perspective but that religious views clearly harmful to people's salvation should be quashed by the state. The Nephite government under the system of judges looks very much like the Dutch Republic in Grotius' day. And we see the very same questions relating to government and religion play out among the Nephites: What is the role of the state in appointing church leaders? How much religious toleration should be granted? Should there be laws to protect people from religious persecution? Is there a point where government should step in to deal with religious dissent? But the Book of Mormon doesn't just ask the same questions being asked in Grotius' homeland in his day. It also answers them in every respect in the same way Grotius answered them. Thus, the Book of Mormon is very favorable to the state appointing religious leaders and, in several cases, they are the same person. Different cities in the Nephi republic were free to determine their own religion, as we see with the apostate Zoramites or the city of Ammonihah. Religious toleration is practiced to a certain degree among the Nephites and there were laws passed to protect people from religious persecution. And, ultimately, when an Anti-Christ like Korihor came among the Nephites it was proper for them to use the power of the state to first, exile him, then later to arrest him and bring him to the state and church leaders to be judged. And speaking of the apostate Zoramites, you'll recall they believed they were the elect and therefore didn't have to do anything significant to be saved, but just worshiped with set prayers once a week on the rameumptom. The major theological debate happening in Grotius' day was between the Calvinist state church that believed in predestination and the Arminians that believed differently. This same debate plays out amongst the Nephites and Zoramites.

In Grotius' lifetime the Dutch Republic was involved in the 80-years war against Spain for independence. The constant state of war (with a 12 year truce in the middle) looks much like the constant state of war of the Nephites. The Dutch armies were even led by a general, who as a military prodigy took command at the age of 18 and became known as the foremost military general in the world at the time. In Grotius we see a systematic theory of theology, philosophy and government that converges into an overall world-view that is heartily shared by Mormon. I should also mention that Grotius, besides being a prolific writer on religious and political affairs also wrote many poems and works of fiction. Among these were tragedies regarding Adam's exile from the Garden of Eden, the Passion of Christ, and Joseph of Egypt. In many respects the Book of Mormon fits into the greater literary milieu of the 17th century somewhere between the tragedies of Shakespeare (and others) and the great works of fiction by John Milton such as Paradise Lost and John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

Grotius, like most jurists of his day, wrote primarily in Latin. He had many admirers. Like John Milton, for instance, who also knew Latin. It’s more likely the Book of Mormon was originally composed in English by an English disciple of Grotius that knew Latin, Greek, and probably Hebrew. Like Milton. But not Milton. 

Heck.  So we can't bring "Paradise Lost" into this . . .

[Rajah Manchou]

46 minutes ago, JarMan said:

It’s more likely the Book of Mormon was originally composed in English by an English disciple of Grotius that knew Latin, Greek, and probably Hebrew. Like Milton. But not Milton. 
....
The major theological debate happening in Grotius' day was between the Calvinist state church that believed in predestination and the Arminians that believed differently. This same debate plays out amongst the Nephites and Zoramites.

Cuckoo pants crazy I know, but another possibility is that the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith's great uncle, John Smith, a professor at Dartmouth who developed the Dartmouth Arminian Theology lectures, and also taught Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Chaldaic, Syriac, Assyric, Arabic, Aramaic and Coptic Egyptian. He must have been quite familiar with Grotius' writings. Dr. John Smith also taught lectures on Native American origins to Solomon Spaulding and Ethan Smith at Dartmouth.

Dartmouth Arminianism And Its Impact on Hyrum Smith And the Smith Family

Edited November 10, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[hope_for_things]

21 hours ago, JarMan said:

I've discovered Mormon's handbook on war and peace. It may shock you to find out that it was written in 1625 by a Dutchman named Hugo Grotius. It will take some time to do a systematic investigation, but from what I can tell so far, the morality of every military aspect of the Book of Mormon is addressed in this book, called "The Rights of War and Peace". This book is considered to be the basis for modern international law and was known to be prized by George Washington, among other prominent military leaders in history. The book addresses such things as when it is morally permissible to make war, the proper treatment of prisoners of war, whether revolution is ever justified, whether it's justifiable to use deceit or strategy in war, whether it is permissible to kill non-combatants, rules for engaging the enemy, when captives may be made slaves, and a whole host of other issues you will find in the Book of Mormon. This, in itself, is not the remarkable thing, though, as you might suppose that a work of this volume and magnitude (it is three books in total and draws heavily on the works of many ancient writers as well as the Bible) would describe many of the things that happen in the Book of Mormon. The truly remarkable thing is that in every case (so far as I can tell) we find perfect agreement between Mormon and Grotius regarding what is morally allowable. It is as if Mormon had a copy of this book handy while he was engraving the plates.

I'm sure you think that either I've overstated my case, or that this is just plain coincidence, or just silliness. But consider this additional information: Hugo Grotius is also the author of another book, "On the Power of Sovereigns Concerning Religious Affairs" in which he outlines the proper role of the government regarding the church. I haven't spent as much time studying this work yet, but it is already apparent to me that the ideal Nephite government was patterned after Grotius' recommendations in this work.

There's more. Grotius was an influential Arminian and was among the notable Dutchmen of his time opposed to many aspects of Calvinism (the state religion) such as predestination, the limits of the atonement, and the relationship between faith and works. The doctrine and soteriology of the Book of Mormon seem to clearly be Arminian in nature. A systematic investigation of the Book of Mormon doctrine as compared to Arminianism will also take some time, but I am convinced there is more than just a chance connection.

I'll leave you with one more thing. . . a teaser of sorts. It turns out Hugo Grotius wrote a short essay in which he speculated about the origins of the people in the Americas. He gives his theory about where both North Americans and South Americans came from. He also talks about the origins of the people of Meso-America. You'll never guess what he says about them. . .

More likely that Joseph Smith was influenced by this writing when he dictated the BoM.  Very interesting, I would love to see the parallels lined up and compared to passages in the BoM.  Are you planning on any papers or blog posts to explore this further?  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

If that is true then we essentially have to concede that Mormon and Grotius were the only people who have ever been inspired by God, but we know that there are many people who have been inspired yet have come up with different "answers" to these same religious, moral, and philosophical questions. 

I'm not sure why we would have to concede that; those with different yet inspired answers might have simply been operating under a completely different set of circumstances and inherited assumptions about the world. Also, I’m thinking that on the subject of these particular answers, Mormon and Groot may have stood on the shoulders of others before them (and who knows but they had more than a few of them in common, including Nephites who headed east again), or at least built their ideas upon principles they had heard before and recognized as inspired. You point out many parallels, but it seems to me that there are maybe half a dozen basic core trajectories, master plot lines or narrative structures for every story ever told or written, which is only a reflection of what we see in real-life human history across all the known the societies of the earth ("there is no new thing under the sun").

Edit: case in point, see the origin story of Guardians of the Galaxy Groot character, which parallels both Grotius and Moses: "The Flora colossus sapling that would come to be known as "Groot" came from an "Ennobled Sap-line" and gifted with a tremendous grasp of quasi-dimensional super-positional engineering. Groot did not get along with fellow saplings but instead preferred the company of the "Maintenance Mammals", which the other saplings treated with prejudice. Groot was exiled by the "Arbor Masters" in GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY #14 after killing another sapling to defend a maintenance mammal it was brutalizing."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groot

Edited November 10, 2017 by CV75

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I'm not sure why we would have to concede that; those with different yet inspired answers might have simply been operating under a completely different set of circumstances and inherited assumptions about the world. Also, I’m thinking that on the subject of these particular answers, Mormon and Groot may have stood on the shoulders of others before them (and who knows but they had more than a few of them in common, including Nephites who headed east again), or at least built their ideas upon principles they had heard before and recognized as inspired. You point out many parallels, but it seems to me that there are maybe half a dozen basic core trajectories, master plot lines or narrative structures for every story ever told or written, which is only a reflection of what we see in real-life human history across all the known the societies of the earth ("there is no new thing under the sun").

Grotius certainly stood upon the shoulders of giants with his work. He was known to be perhaps the most well-read scholar of his time and he used hundreds of citations of ancient authors in his work. He draws heavily on the ancient Greek philosophers as well as ancient Romans, ancient Jews, several early church fathers, and of course the Old and New Testaments. His work is all the more remarkable because it is the first of its kind. Mormon would have had the Old Testament as well as the words of Christ, but most of the vast and varied source material which forms the foundation of Grotius' work would have been unavailable. The two came from completely different cultural milieus and it seems either extremely unlikely or else miraculous for there to be such a strong convergence between the thinking of the two men. We could make a similar comparison between George Washington and Grotius, and I think we could build a strong case that George Washington was influenced by Grotius on issues of war and peace. But we couldn't make a case that Washington and Grotius agreed closely on religious doctrine or on the proper relationship between church and state. Similarly, we can trace Thomas Jefferson's ideas about the role of government in protecting property and religious conscience back through Locke and others and then to Grotius (and then to others before Grotius). But we see a clear evolution of ideas during the 150 year time period from Grotius to Jefferson. And we see no agreement between Jefferson and Grotius on the other issues I've mentioned. As far as Grotius' ideas about the church-state relationship, they have essentially been relegated to the history books in modern, western society, and would have seemed very foreign, particularly in America, even by the 1820's. The point is that some of Grotius' ideas survived long after him and have undergone transformations of varying degrees in the intervening years, while still some of his ideas are largely rejected today. There is really no coherent worldview existing today or in any other time that can be considered anything more than simply partially Grotian, or influenced by Grotius. That is, except for the Book of Mormon. The religious and political thought of the Book of Mormon is very complex and wasn't produced in a vacuum (and certainly wasn't produced by a 23 year old farm hand). Underlying the Book of Mormon is a complex series of real, historical events spanning thousands of years and commentated on by a brilliant mind well-schooled in world history, philosophy, theology and law. Maybe that mind was Mormon's. But maybe it wasn't. It definitely wasn't Joseph's.

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Grotius certainly stood upon the shoulders of giants with his work. He was known to be perhaps the most well-read scholar of his time and he used hundreds of citations of ancient authors in his work. He draws heavily on the ancient Greek philosophers as well as ancient Romans, ancient Jews, several early church fathers, and of course the Old and New Testaments. His work is all the more remarkable because it is the first of its kind. Mormon would have had the Old Testament as well as the words of Christ, but most of the vast and varied source material which forms the foundation of Grotius' work would have been unavailable. The two came from completely different cultural milieus and it seems either extremely unlikely or else miraculous for there to be such a strong convergence between the thinking of the two men. We could make a similar comparison between George Washington and Grotius, and I think we could build a strong case that George Washington was influenced by Grotius on issues of war and peace. But we couldn't make a case that Washington and Grotius agreed closely on religious doctrine or on the proper relationship between church and state. Similarly, we can trace Thomas Jefferson's ideas about the role of government in protecting property and religious conscience back through Locke and others and then to Grotius (and then to others before Grotius). But we see a clear evolution of ideas during the 150 year time period from Grotius to Jefferson. And we see no agreement between Jefferson and Grotius on the other issues I've mentioned. As far as Grotius' ideas about the church-state relationship, they have essentially been relegated to the history books in modern, western society, and would have seemed very foreign, particularly in America, even by the 1820's. The point is that some of Grotius' ideas survived long after him and have undergone transformations of varying degrees in the intervening years, while still some of his ideas are largely rejected today. There is really no coherent worldview existing today or in any other time that can be considered anything more than simply partially Grotian, or influenced by Grotius. That is, except for the Book of Mormon. The religious and political thought of the Book of Mormon is very complex and wasn't produced in a vacuum (and certainly wasn't produced by a 23 year old farm hand). Underlying the Book of Mormon is a complex series of real, historical events spanning thousands of years and commentated on by a brilliant mind well-schooled in world history, philosophy, theology and law. Maybe that mind was Mormon's. But maybe it wasn't. It definitely wasn't Joseph's.

It seems Elder Calister would agree with what or who didn't produce the Book of Mormon, at least in principle! https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/gods-compelling-witness-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

I think the further you go back, the more Groot and Mormon (and Moses and Joseph Smith) can be shown to have in common, especially since there are so few themes to coordinate.

[Rajah Manchou]

38 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Underlying the Book of Mormon is a complex series of real, historical events spanning thousands of years and commentated on by a brilliant mind well-schooled in world history, philosophy, theology and law. Maybe that mind was Mormon's. But maybe it wasn't. It definitely wasn't Joseph's.

It's fun to speculate that there was some revelatory or translation process including people like Dee, Grotius, Shakespeare, Swedenborg etc. Who knows, maybe there was. But the simplest answer would be that all these ideas were part of the Dartmouth curriculum which was compiled by the Arminian preacher John Smith, a brilliant mind well-schooled in world history, philosophy, languages, theology and law -- and most importantly, a close relative of Joseph Smith.

Hyrum studied at Dartmouth. Hyrum tutored Joseph for nearly a year while Joseph was undergoing treatment (by the son-in-law of Dr. John Smith) for his infected leg bone. 

Grotius (or any other thinker, geographer, mapmaker, philosopher, historian) --> John Smith --> Hyrum Smith --> Joseph Smith

Edited November 11, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

It's fun to speculate that there was some revelatory or translation process including people like Dee, Grotius, Shakespeare, Swedenborg etc. Who knows, maybe there was. But the simplest answer would be that all these ideas were part of the Dartmouth curriculum which was compiled by the Arminian preacher John Smith, a brilliant mind well-schooled in world history, philosophy, languages, theology and law -- and most importantly, a close relative of Joseph Smith.

Hyrum studied at Dartmouth. Hyrum tutored Joseph for nearly a year while Joseph was undergoing treatment (by the son-in-law of Dr. John Smith) for his infected leg bone. 

Grotius (or any other thinker, geographer, mapmaker, philosopher, historian) --> John Smith --> Hyrum Smith --> Joseph Smith

Interesting theory. But it doesn’t account for the Early Modern English. 

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

It seems Elder Calister would agree with what or who didn't produce the Book of Mormon, at least in principle! https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/gods-compelling-witness-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

I think the further you go back, the more Groot and Mormon (and Moses and Joseph Smith) can be shown to have in common, especially since there are so few themes to coordinate.

Yes, one of my favorite talks last conference.

I want to address the idea that the further you go back in time the more likely you are to find things in common. I've basically shown three different themes that exist both in the Book of Mormon and in Grotius' writings and I'll address each one with the aforementioned idea in mind. 1) The role of the state in religion - You are at least partially right on this one. If you go back to Old Testament times you will see a similar theory. Many other ancient non-biblical civilizations also had a close church-state relation. 2) Arminianism - This particular strand of Protestantism developed in the early 17th century in response to Dutch Calvinism. Calvinism, of course, can be seen in the larger context of the 16th century reformation. But the farther in time you go back before 1600, the farther away you get from Arminianism. It is not the case that if you keep going back you end up with more in common. 3) The laws of peace and war - There simply never was a systematic treatment of this subject until Grotius' seminal work. As you go back in time you see many things in every age, as a rule, that contradict what he had to say about the morality of certain actions in war. In Grotius' own age the actions of the various warring nations violated these principles, and the attempt to urge moral restraint in warfare was apparently the entire point of producing the work. This work was influential for later enlightenment thinkers, but as a systematic way of conducting warfare it was a foreign way of thinking for essentially all of human history before 1625.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

Interesting theory. But it doesn’t account for the Early Modern English. 

That's certainly true.

To clarify, are you not proposing that "the Book of Mormon was originally composed in English by an English disciple of Grotius that knew Latin, Greek, and probably Hebrew."

Dr. John Smith of the late 18th century certainly fits that description, and he was also an Arminian theologian who wrote an advanced college curriculum that closely matches early Mormon doctrine. He was also a cousin to Joseph Smith Sr. 

Are you saying it is more likely that someone without known links to Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon in the 16th-17th centuries? I'm definitely not opposed to that, and have had similar ideas, eg. a disciple of Swedenborg. But its much harder case to make when we already have a close relative of Joseph Smith living in the same town who fits the profile. 

Edited November 11, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[JarMan]

47 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

That's certainly true.

To clarify, are you not proposing that "the Book of Mormon was originally composed in English by an English disciple of Grotius that knew Latin, Greek, and probably Hebrew."

Dr. John Smith of the late 18th century certainly fits that description, and he was also an Arminian theologian who wrote an advanced college curriculum that closely matches early Mormon doctrine. He was also a cousin to Joseph Smith Sr. 

Are you saying it is more likely that someone without known links to Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon in the 16th-17th centuries? I'm definitely not opposed to that, and have had similar ideas, eg. a disciple of Swedenborg. But its much harder case to make when we already have a close relative of Joseph Smith living in the same town who fits the profile. 

I’m beginning to think an original Latin composition followed by an English translation may be a better model since it could possibly explain some of the English words and phrases that seem to post-date the era I have in mind. Also, though John Smith may be a match on the Arminian, do we know anything about his philosophy on war and peace or on the proper role of government as related to religion? These are the three points where I think I’ve found a clear correlation between Grotius and the Book of Mormon. 

[thesometimesaint]

I wonder just how big was the Palmyra Reading Lending Library of 1829.

Edited November 11, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[CV75]

13 hours ago, JarMan said:

Yes, one of my favorite talks last conference.

I want to address the idea that the further you go back in time the more likely you are to find things in common. I've basically shown three different themes that exist both in the Book of Mormon and in Grotius' writings and I'll address each one with the aforementioned idea in mind. 1) The role of the state in religion - You are at least partially right on this one. If you go back to Old Testament times you will see a similar theory. Many other ancient non-biblical civilizations also had a close church-state relation. 2) Arminianism - This particular strand of Protestantism developed in the early 17th century in response to Dutch Calvinism. Calvinism, of course, can be seen in the larger context of the 16th century reformation. But the farther in time you go back before 1600, the farther away you get from Arminianism. It is not the case that if you keep going back you end up with more in common. 3) The laws of peace and war - There simply never was a systematic treatment of this subject until Grotius' seminal work. As you go back in time you see many things in every age, as a rule, that contradict what he had to say about the morality of certain actions in war. In Grotius' own age the actions of the various warring nations violated these principles, and the attempt to urge moral restraint in warfare was apparently the entire point of producing the work. This work was influential for later enlightenment thinkers, but as a systematic way of conducting warfare it was a foreign way of thinking for essentially all of human history before 1625.

From what I can gather, Arminianism has its roots in biblical interpretation, it originators expounding upon reclaimed teachings of early church fathers. Likewise, I see the attitude toward war as an application of the Beatitudes and Deuteronomy 20, wherein 16th century Europe it was reasonable to propose that an offensive attitude toward war was best avoided due to the risks of equally prepared enemies, and where a strong defense was instead preferred. In an age where the seemingly unlimited resources of New World was opening up for the taking, and no end to what could be explored and mined for resources,  wars of conquest for others' existing resources was unnecessary (at least until the explorations and claims started competing over the newly discovered resources).