Book of Mormon similarities with 1st Century Roman Empire

[Robert F. Smith]

39 minutes ago, cinepro said:

When I was young, one of the most convincing evidences of the Book of Mormon to me was that there was no way anyone, let alone Joseph Smith, could be creative enough to come up with a book like that.

But if apologists have taught me anything, it is that I have severely underestimated the human capacity for creativity.

Yes, and the unexpected twists and turns in basic research results can be humbling and distracting from the accepted norms which have dominated the conversation for a long time.  The possible 16th or 17th century authorship of the BofM is merely one example, leaving many of us dumbfounded.  The apologists and polemicists are equally puzzled.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, JarMan said:

It only puts a damper on my hypothesis if there are archaeological correlations that couldn't have been known in the 17th Century. There was actually a lot that was known about the western hemisphere at that time. You may be interested in perusing a work called "The Natural and Moral History of the Indies" first published in about 1590 by a Jesuit priest named Jose de Acosta.

https://books.google.com/books?id=UAoVAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=acosta+history+indies&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmvYWVkrjYAhVIhlQKHQx-DfYQ6AEIOTAD#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=cT4RAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=acosta+history+indies&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmvYWVkrjYAhVIhlQKHQx-DfYQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q&f=false

There is a lot of information in these works about the American people and environment that is similar to what is found in the Book of Mormon (human sacrifice, healing herbs, and metallurgy, for example). And there are other similar works out there with additional information.

In addition, cartography was in peak form in the 17th Century. Here is a 1608 world map published by a Dutch cartographer http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map/antique-world-map.htm and here's a 1625 map of meso-America produced by a Dutch cartographer and known associate of Grotius: https://www.sanderusmaps.com/detail.cfm?c=13585 My theory is that there was enough information available in the 17th Century to produce "Mormon's Map" but I have not spent a lot of time trying to verify this.

There are also works from the time period that describe the Arabian Peninsula. Here is a page that has several maps of the Arabian Peninsula http://www.turkeyinmaps.com/Sayfa2.html Now if I could just find one that mentions NHM.  

Those are all worthwhile areas to examine, but I was thinking more of modern archeology and anthropology -- especially in Mesoamerica, since that was the only area in the New World in which a high civilization(s) existed during the parallel BofM periods.  No amount of 16th and 17th century scholarship could have approximated the depth of knowledge now available on those areas.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

So, let me see if I follow you?

A 17th century Dutch prophet, well read in Roman military history, receives a vision or revelation of the Lehite civilizations. He filters it through his worldview and writes it in Latin and translates it into English. He decides to write himself in as several of the characters (Nephi, Jacob, Mormon, Moroni, etc). This is lost. He shares it with no one and it helps no one at the time except maybe the author.

The angel Moroni gives the plates to Joseph (did the Dutch guy ever have the plates?) and God by revelation gives Joseph the Dutch prophet’s English translation as he translates.

Joseph is either not told about this or was told and told no one else. Joseph does minor changes to the Book of Mormon text without the Dutch prophet’s permission. I am going to call him Lucas just to keep it simple.

So why was Lucas needed? If God wanted a translation done why pick Lucas to do it when he is several centuries removed? If he did have the right credentials would it not make sense for him to do this after he was dead?

Also do we need to replace Smithmas with Lucasmas to honor him?

 

You're getting closer, sort of. Let's just assume for a minute that my 17th Century man is Hugo Grotius. In some respects he was the eminent scholar of his time and he wrote extensively about and in defense of the Christian religion. His most famous work (De jure belli ac pacis) is concerned with the waging of war, particularly what actions in war are legal or moral. He was fluent in Latin and Greek and was a humanist historiographer who had thoroughly studied classical Greek and Latin texts. We know this because he cites these ancient works extensively. In fact, he even cites Tacfarinas in his works so we know without a doubt that he was aware of the story. He also served for many years in civil service in what amounts to a governorship position in Holland and also served as Sweden's ambassador to France (after he was exiled from the Netherlands for his political and religious views).  He also wrote several works of religious fiction including one on the Garden of Eden Story, one regarding Joseph in Egypt, and one about the passion of Christ. He was by all accounts a pious man and his life's work was devoted to uniting the Christian peoples including Catholics and all types of Protestants. In short, he was eminently qualified in every way to author the Book of Mormon. But his religious and political views, even more than his qualifications, speaks to him as being the author since he was an Arminian (the doctrine of the Book of Mormon), an Erastian (the monarchial theory of government of the Book of Mormon), a religious-freedom republican (the non-monarchial theory of government in the Book of Mormon), and, obviously, a Grotian (the international war theory of the Book of Mormon). He also wrote seminal works that were never discovered or published until long after his death, as is the case with "Meletius" (published 1988) and "Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty" (published 1868). So we just have to pretend that there is one more work he created that has not yet been "discovered." This is the Book of Mormon, written in Latin, as almost all of his works were. But Grotius didn't produce the English version since he didn't know English well enough to do this. However, he did have several close English associates who could have taken his work and translated it into English. This translated English text was transmitted by Joseph Smith in 1828 and 1829, through the use of the seer stone, to his scribes.

[The Nehor]

Missionary explaining Book of Mormon:

”The Book of Mormon is an ancient record from the Americas written for our day as a witness and a warning to the world. It was delivered by the angel Moroni, one of the writers. The Book was written on gold plates and delivered to a modern prophet named Joseph Smith.”

”I will pass thanks. That sounds a little absurd.”

“Hold on sir! While not accepted yet generally there is more to the story and you seem intelligent enough to understand it. You see a Dutch philosopher wrote the book in Latin based on the gold plates the angel had and then never distributed it. Joseph Smith was given that Dutch guy’s translation via revelation. We can infer this because he read Roman accounts superficially similar to the Book of Mormon and they used religious and political principles he favored. Does that make more sense?”

”Your first story was better.”

[Darren10]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

When I was young, one of the most convincing evidences of the Book of Mormon to me was that there was no way anyone, let alone Joseph Smith, could be creative enough to come up with a book like that.

But if apologists have taught me anything, it is that I have severely underestimated the human capacity for creativity.

Perhaps but no LDS apologist has come up with the core of  his or her “creative” schemes in less than three months. 

Here’s something I just happened to listen to right before I came to Mormon Dialogue:

Quote

One of the most enduring lines in all of the Book of Mormon is Alma’s declaration, “O that I were an angel.” Alma expands on this wish, “that I might go forth and speak with the trump of God” (Alma 29:1). Alma’s use of trumpet imagery is interesting in light of the timing in which he wrote this thoughtful and moving piece of prophetic poetry—the 16^th year of the reign of the judges.1 This was the 49^th year since King Benjamin’s powerful oration at the coronation of his son Mosiah,2 an event some scholars believe was a jubilee celebration.3

(snip)

Coveting—or desiring or wishing for things that are not properly ours—denies two fundamental principles underscored by the jubilee: first the recognition that all the earth and everything in it belongs to God, and second that God gives and takes as he knows how things ought to be. Alma appears to have recognized these underlying principles when he remarked, “I ought not to harrow up in my desires the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto men according to their desire” (Alma 29:4).17

Textually, it is remarkable, to say the least, that the Book of Mormon manifests literary motifs associated with the jubilee in two places exactly 49 years apart. The rapid dictation of the Book of Mormon18 would hardly have allowed time for Joseph to count off the years and to mark these jubilees with such subtle sophistication, let alone to set the gorgeous language in Alma 29 so richly in this contextual background. 

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/why-did-alma-wish-to-speak-“with-the-trump-of-god”

Coincidence or lucky moment for Joseph Smith? Most probably not. But don’t forget to let God talk to you. That’s the most important thing. 

 

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

You're getting closer, sort of. Let's just assume for a minute that my 17th Century man is Hugo Grotius. In some respects he was the eminent scholar of his time and he wrote extensively about and in defense of the Christian religion. His most famous work (De jure belli ac pacis) is concerned with the waging of war, particularly what actions in war are legal or moral. He was fluent in Latin and Greek and was a humanist historiographer who had thoroughly studied classical Greek and Latin texts. We know this because he cites these ancient works extensively. In fact, he even cites Tacfarinas in his works so we know without a doubt that he was aware of the story. He also served for many years in civil service in what amounts to a governorship position in Holland and also served as Sweden's ambassador to France (after he was exiled from the Netherlands for his political and religious views).  He also wrote several works of religious fiction including one on the Garden of Eden Story, one regarding Joseph in Egypt, and one about the passion of Christ. He was by all accounts a pious man and his life's work was devoted to uniting the Christian peoples including Catholics and all types of Protestants. In short, he was eminently qualified in every way to author the Book of Mormon. But his religious and political views, even more than his qualifications, speaks to him as being the author since he was an Arminian (the doctrine of the Book of Mormon), an Erastian (the monarchial theory of government of the Book of Mormon), a religious-freedom republican (the non-monarchial theory of government in the Book of Mormon), and, obviously, a Grotian (the international war theory of the Book of Mormon). He also wrote seminal works that were never discovered or published until long after his death, as is the case with "Meletius" (published 1988) and "Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty" (published 1868). So we just have to pretend that there is one more work he created that has not yet been "discovered." This is the Book of Mormon, written in Latin, as almost all of his works were. But Grotius didn't produce the English version since he didn't know English well enough to do this. However, he did have several close English associates who could have taken his work and translated it into English. This translated English text was transmitted by Joseph Smith in 1828 and 1829, through the use of the seer stone, to his scribes.

So, Joseph Smith did not use the plates but the Dutchman's story? Why then did Joseph not just translate from Latin as opposed to Reformed Egyptian? Why did he send Reformed Egyptian characters to Professor Charles Anthon and not Latin, Greek or Dutch characters? 

[Helmuth4]

Before I am banned (again) inexplicibly, cowardly, and with no reason, having broken no rules, let me say:

Biohistory

It relates to the Book of Mormon and the Roman Republic and Empire.  Fascinating stuff.

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Those are all worthwhile areas to examine, but I was thinking more of modern archeology and anthropology -- especially in Mesoamerica, since that was the only area in the New World in which a high civilization(s) existed during the parallel BofM periods.  No amount of 16th and 17th century scholarship could have approximated the depth of knowledge now available on those areas.

Complex civilizations existed in meso-America from at least about 2500 BC up to the European conquest. That’s a pretty hard target to miss. 

Edited January 3, 2018 by JarMan

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We can infer this because he read Roman accounts superficially similar to the Book of Mormon and they used religious and political principles he favored.

I’m not going to let you get away with calling a spade a watermelon. The similarities in the Roman story referenced in the OP are far from superficial. I identified 17 distinct characteristics, one of which was essentially the exact date. You’re going to have to do much more than simply claim superficiality without addressing any of the substance  

And clearly you’re not appreciating my claim that the entire philosophy underlying the Book of Mormon from essentially every angle (doctrine, government, war, etc) is reflective of Grotius’ own views. I am making an incredibly bold claim but your response has been to essentially mischaracterize it or pretend you haven’t heard it. 

What I’m really trying to say is that I’ve put forth a complex model supported by tons of historical evidence and I think it deserves to live or die on its own merits rather than being met with sneering condescension. If you have a substantive criticism, by all means share it. If you only have snarkiness, please refrain. (I would even accept 50\50 on the critical thought/snarkiness continuum.)

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, Helmuth4 said:

Before I am banned (again) inexplicibly, cowardly, and with no reason, having broken no rules, let me say:

Biohistory

It relates to the Book of Mormon and the Roman Republic and Empire.  Fascinating stuff.

You are not reading the guidelines if you do not know why you keep getting banned.  This is the rule you break every time you create a new username.

"Creating another user name (sock puppet) to get around suspension or banning"

Edited January 3, 2018 by Calm

[JarMan]

49 minutes ago, Helmuth4 said:

Before I am banned (again) inexplicibly, cowardly, and with no reason, having broken no rules, let me say:

Biohistory

It relates to the Book of Mormon and the Roman Republic and Empire.  Fascinating stuff.

I don’t believe I’ve come across you on this board before but I vote for banning based on this post alone. I’m not going to explain the several violations of board rules since I assume you can check those out yourself. (Hint: they are stickied at the top of the page.)

[Robert F. Smith]

39 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Complex civilizations existed in meso-America from at least about 2500 BC up to the European conquest. That’s a pretty hard target to miss. 

I believe that I mentioned "modern archeology and anthropology" in the context of "16th and 17th century scholarship" versus the "depth of knowledge now available on those areas."  You are free to believe that modern archeology and anthropology have nothing to tell us about Mesoamerica which was not already known in the 16th and 17th century, but that would be like baying at the moon.  I recommend instead reading Brant Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (SLC: Kofford, 2015), and John Sorenson, Mormon's Codex (BYU Maxwell Institute/Deseret Book, 2013), in order to understand the full implications discerned by modern, professional anthropologists.  As it happens, the chronology and nature of the Olmec and later cultures of that region matches those of the Book of Mormon cultures.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

So, Joseph Smith did not use the plates but the Dutchman's story? Why then did Joseph not just translate from Latin as opposed to Reformed Egyptian? Why did he send Reformed Egyptian characters to Professor Charles Anthon and not Latin, Greek or Dutch characters? 

I think what JarMan is suggesting is that the Book of Mormon plates are in Egyptian, and that the Latin used to make a translation at that time (17th century) was merely a first step:  That it was then rendered in a 17th century Early Modern English version, a language no longer existing in Joseph's day.  So Joseph merely read off that 17th century English version from the seersone.

[Exiled]

30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think what JarMan is suggesting is that the Book of Mormon plates are in Egyptian, and that the Latin used to make a translation at that time (17th century) was merely a first step:  That it was then rendered in a 17th century Early Modern English version, a language no longer existing in Joseph's day.  So Joseph merely read off that 17th century English version from the seersone.

Why do you think God would have so many steps for the book of mormon translation when he just spoke directly in the D&C or the Book of Moses?  It seems like complexity is being inserted where it isn't necessary.

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, Darren10 said:

So, Joseph Smith did not use the plates but the Dutchman's story? Why then did Joseph not just translate from Latin as opposed to Reformed Egyptian? Why did he send Reformed Egyptian characters to Professor Charles Anthon and not Latin, Greek or Dutch characters? 

Think of the gold plates in terms of the Abraham papyri. It doesn’t matter what’s on them. They could contain Mayan funeral rituals. Or Mayan spells. They could be written in reformed Egyptian, Mayan, or be complete gibberish.

Maybe Joseph could have translated a Latin text to English. But the evidence suggests to me that it was transmitted rather than translated. And since it is in EModE an immediate translation in the 17th Century from the original Latin seems likely. An alternate hypothesis is that there never was a Latin text but that it was written originally in EModE. However, this actually creates more problems than it solves. 

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Why do you think God would have so many steps for the book of mormon translation when he just spoke directly in the D&C or the Book of Moses?  It seems like complexity is being inserted where it isn't necessary.

Why did God send Egyptian funerary papyri to get us the Book of Abraham? Couldn’t Joseph have gotten it the same way he got the Book of Moses?

But to answer your question, I’ll give you some speculation. God needs prophets to write his words. It seems to me that all scripture is a mixture of God’s words and the prophet’s words. Thus he really needs to have the right guy for the job lest God’s words get mingled with the rantings of an idiot or a lunatic. God found the right prophet to write the message he wanted. The problem was that the right man was on the scene about 200 years too early. But that’s no problem for God. He preserved the words until the time was right and he had the words transmitted to his new prophet. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Why do you think God would have so many steps for the book of mormon translation when he just spoke directly in the D&C or the Book of Moses?  It seems like complexity is being inserted where it isn't necessary.

Yeh, and mind you that merely reflects JarMan's theory, which is only one among several.  What explanation would you apply to the Early Modern English quandary?  What seems more parsimonious?  Is it God's sense of humor?  Or is something else at play?  Is there an elegant and simple grand unifying theory?

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I believe that I mentioned "modern archeology and anthropology" in the context of "16th and 17th century scholarship" versus the "depth of knowledge now available on those areas."  You are free to believe that modern archeology and anthropology have nothing to tell us about Mesoamerica which was not already known in the 16th and 17th century, but that would be like baying at the moon.  I recommend instead reading Brant Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (SLC: Kofford, 2015), and John Sorenson, Mormon's Codex (BYU Maxwell Institute/Deseret Book, 2013), in order to understand the full implications discerned by modern, professional anthropologists.  As it happens, the chronology and nature of the Olmec and later cultures of that region matches those of the Book of Mormon cultures.

I’m tempted to ask for an example, but if it’s okay with you I’d rather put this issue on the shelf and perhaps discuss it in depth at a later time. (I can only fight on so many fronts at once.) Btw I’m a big fan of Brant’s and he is my all-time favorite poster on this message board. (I wonder where he’s been lately.) I have a few of his books, though not the one you mentioned, but from what he’s posted on here over the years I think I have a fairly good idea where he’s coming from. 

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Why did God send Egyptian funerary papyri to get us the Book of Abraham? Couldn’t Joseph have gotten it the same way he got the Book of Moses?

But to answer your question, I’ll give you some speculation. God needs prophets to write his words. It seems to me that all scripture is a mixture of God’s words and the prophet’s words. Thus he really needs to have the right guy for the job lest God’s words get mingled with the rantings of an idiot or a lunatic. God found the right prophet to write the message he wanted. The problem was that the right man was on the scene about 200 years too early. But that’s no problem for God. He preserved the words until the time was right and he had the words transmitted to his new prophet. 

Ok, but it also sounds like a way to avoid falsification of historicity by making the book seem other-worldly, inserting the possibility of EmodE as a vector for this.

 

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, and mind you that merely reflects JarMan's theory, which is only one among several.  What explanation would you apply to the Early Modern English quandary?  What seems more parsimonious?  Is it God's sense of humor?  Or is something else at play?  Is there an elegant and simple grand unifying theory?

It was a 19th century biblical fan fiction piece made by a person or persons who spoke the appalachian english dialect trying to sound old world biblical as part of a magician's trick to fool the masses?  Is it too much to say that maybe EmodE was inspired by a 1611 vintage bible Smith had?  Maybe his uncle from Dartmouth helped?  The Smiths/Macks were interested in religion and inventing a new religion might have been seen as a way to earn a living?  In any event, for me, disappearing dna bolsters Vogel's indian origins theory.  So, parsimony points to a 19th century creation.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

I’m not going to let you get away with calling a spade a watermelon. The similarities in the Roman story referenced in the OP are far from superficial. I identified 17 distinct characteristics, one of which was essentially the exact date. You’re going to have to do much more than simply claim superficiality without addressing any of the substance  

And clearly you’re not appreciating my claim that the entire philosophy underlying the Book of Mormon from essentially every angle (doctrine, government, war, etc) is reflective of Grotius’ own views. I am making an incredibly bold claim but your response has been to essentially mischaracterize it or pretend you haven’t heard it. 

What I’m really trying to say is that I’ve put forth a complex model supported by tons of historical evidence and I think it deserves to live or die on its own merits rather than being met with sneering condescension. If you have a substantive criticism, by all means share it. If you only have snarkiness, please refrain. (I would even accept 50\50 on the critical thought/snarkiness continuum.)

I disagree about the superficiality. That things happened in the exact same year seem to me more an indication that it is an Easter egg in a fictional piece and not evidence it is real history. Many of the factors given as similarities are just silly to me. That they killed the leader of the enemy? Am I expected to believe there was a more likely option they would have taken? That Romans sought for a conventional battle when that was obviously to their advantage? Were you expecting them to become guerillas themselves?

Your theory that this man wrote the book is based on such a non-existent connection I just do not buy it. It is not even a circumstantial case because the cicumstances are not there. You say he could not have written it in English? Where are the Latin artifacts in the translation? Where is the attempt to tie it to his writing style? You have nothing but a guess with only superficial plausibility.

You do not have tons of historical evidence. You have tenuous guesswork.

[JarMan]

29 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Ok, but it also sounds like a way to avoid falsification of historicity by making the book seem other-worldly, inserting the possibility of EmodE as a vector for this.

The problem with this is that my hypothesis cuts both ways. I could just as easily argue that the ties to Grotius and the 17th Century indicate the Book of Mormon is fictional. 

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, JarMan said:

The problem with this is that my hypothesis cuts both ways. I could just as easily argue that the ties to Grotius and the 17th Century indicate the Book of Mormon is fictional. 

I think the problem is that the nature of the 17th century parallels make it unlikely Joseph wrote it - you pretty much require a well educated author. However there's no evidence of such a text, why someone would write a text like the Book of Mormon, or how Joseph would get ahold of it.

[JarMan]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I disagree about the superficiality. That things happened in the exact same year seem to me more an indication that it is an Easter egg in a fictional piece and not evidence it is real history. Many of the factors given as similarities are just silly to me. That they killed the leader of the enemy? Am I expected to believe there was a more likely option they would have taken? That Romans sought for a conventional battle when that was obviously to their advantage? Were you expecting them to become guerillas themselves?

Your theory that this man wrote the book is based on such a non-existent connection I just do not buy it. It is not even a circumstantial case because the cicumstances are not there. You say he could not have written it in English? Where are the Latin artifacts in the translation? Where is the attempt to tie it to his writing style? You have nothing but a guess with only superficial plausibility.

You do not have tons of historical evidence. You have tenuous guesswork.

Let me re-present you with some historical evidence. It's up to you whether you continue to pretend it is not there or whether you want to examine it.

The Rights of War and Peace by Hugo Grotius

I've read this work and have made the claim that every aspect of warfare in the Book of Mormon in which the morality of that action is addressed, that same action can be found in Grotius' book with the same assessment of its morality. In another thread I discussed some of the specific comparisons, particularly a strong parallel with Alma 47.

The Education of a Christian Prince by Desiderius Erasmus

I've read this work and have made the claim that it presents a prototypical Christian Prince that is completely consistent with King Benjamin and, for the most part, Mosiah2. On the other hand, the anti-type is completely consistent with King Noah. This work influenced many other writers including William Tyndale, who wrote Obedience of the Christian Man. Part of Tyndale's work has a clear and direct connection to King Benjamin's speech in Mosiah 2 as I've demonstrated in another thread. In addition, Hugo Grotius produced a work called Of the Empire, or Authority of the Highest Powers about Sacred things, or, in matters of Religion that addresses many of the same issues of these other works. I am still working my way through this book. Grotius was heavily influenced by Erasmus on this topic and so far the two have been pretty consistent with each other. In addition to describing the prototypical and antitypical rulers, these works also address the proper relation between church and state. The role of government regarding matters of religion in the Book of Mormon is completely consistent with Erasmus' work, and as far as I have read, consistent with Grotius' book.

The Arminian Confession of 1621 by Simon Episcopius

This work summarizes the beliefs of the Arminians and very closely represents the doctrine of the Book of Mormon. It is certainly closer to the doctrine of the Book of Mormon than current LDS doctrine. There is a great body of other work describing Arminian beliefs. As may be expected it changes a little bit over time and from person to person. I believe that virtually all aspects of Book of Mormon doctrine can be found in these Arminian sources or other closely related, contemporary sources.

Burning of heretics: In another thread I showed that the practice of burning heretics in the Book of Mormon closely conforms in many separate details with the same practice in Eurasia between 1100 AD and the beginning of the 17th Century. The burning of heretics is only known to have occurred in all of human history in the time period mentioned above.

In one of the previous threads I showed how the government of the Netherlands in the late 16th/early 17th century is very similar to the Nephite government at the time of the judges.

In a previous thread I showed that the conflict between the Nephites and Zoramites has close parallels to the Armenian-Calvinist conflict of the early 17th Century. As a result of this conflict Grotius was sentenced to life in prison. He escaped after a couple of years and spent the rest of his life essentially in exile. This conflict actually had a political element, as well. The commander of the Dutch Army, Maurice of Orange, was looking to consolidate power and place himself as ruler of the Dutch Republic. He was actually successful in doing this by siding with the Calvinists in their religious debate with the Armenians. It was he that sentenced Grotius to life imprisonment while he executed Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, a leader of the Arminians and an old political opponent. The idea of a leader rising up to become a king therefore depriving the people of their freedoms is, of course, a common theme in the Book of Mormon.

If you want to examine these and other historical sources and provide an analysis showing me where my hypothesis fails, I welcome the input. Otherwise I recommend you limit your drive-by snark-attacks to other threads.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the problem is that the nature of the 17th century parallels make it unlikely Joseph wrote it - you pretty much require a well educated author. 

This is true. 

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

However there's no evidence of such a text, why someone would write a text like the Book of Mormon, or how Joseph would get ahold of it.

The same could be said about the Book of Moses or D&C 7. 

But I'll give you an idea why I think someone would write a text like a Book of Mormon: because God inspired him to. Again, same as the Book of Moses and D&C 7.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Let me re-present you with some historical evidence. It's up to you whether you continue to pretend it is not there or whether you want to examine it.

The Rights of War and Peace by Hugo Grotius

I've read this work and have made the claim that every aspect of warfare in the Book of Mormon in which the morality of that action is addressed, that same action can be found in Grotius' book with the same assessment of its morality. In another thread I discussed some of the specific comparisons, particularly a strong parallel with Alma 47.

The Education of a Christian Prince by Desiderius Erasmus

I've read this work and have made the claim that it presents a prototypical Christian Prince that is completely consistent with King Benjamin and, for the most part, Mosiah2. On the other hand, the anti-type is completely consistent with King Noah. This work influenced many other writers including William Tyndale, who wrote Obedience of the Christian Man. Part of Tyndale's work has a clear and direct connection to King Benjamin's speech in Mosiah 2 as I've demonstrated in another thread. In addition, Hugo Grotius produced a work called Of the Empire, or Authority of the Highest Powers about Sacred things, or, in matters of Religion that addresses many of the same issues of these other works. I am still working my way through this book. Grotius was heavily influenced by Erasmus on this topic and so far the two have been pretty consistent with each other. In addition to describing the prototypical and antitypical rulers, these works also address the proper relation between church and state. The role of government regarding matters of religion in the Book of Mormon is completely consistent with Erasmus' work, and as far as I have read, consistent with Grotius' book.

The Arminian Confession of 1621 by Simon Episcopius

This work summarizes the beliefs of the Arminians and very closely represents the doctrine of the Book of Mormon. It is certainly closer to the doctrine of the Book of Mormon than current LDS doctrine. There is a great body of other work describing Arminian beliefs. As may be expected it changes a little bit over time and from person to person. I believe that virtually all aspects of Book of Mormon doctrine can be found in these Arminian sources or other closely related, contemporary sources.

Burning of heretics: In another thread I showed that the practice of burning heretics in the Book of Mormon closely conforms in many separate details with the same practice in Eurasia between 1100 AD and the beginning of the 17th Century. The burning of heretics is only known to have occurred in all of human history in the time period mentioned above.

In one of the previous threads I showed how the government of the Netherlands in the late 16th/early 17th century is very similar to the Nephite government at the time of the judges.

In a previous thread I showed that the conflict between the Nephites and Zoramites has close parallels to the Armenian-Calvinist conflict of the early 17th Century. As a result of this conflict Grotius was sentenced to life in prison. He escaped after a couple of years and spent the rest of his life essentially in exile. This conflict actually had a political element, as well. The commander of the Dutch Army, Maurice of Orange, was looking to consolidate power and place himself as ruler of the Dutch Republic. He was actually successful in doing this by siding with the Calvinists in their religious debate with the Armenians. It was he that sentenced Grotius to life imprisonment while he executed Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, a leader of the Arminians and an old political opponent. The idea of a leader rising up to become a king therefore depriving the people of their freedoms is, of course, a common theme in the Book of Mormon.

If you want to examine these and other historical sources and provide an analysis showing me where my hypothesis fails, I welcome the input. Otherwise I recommend you limit your drive-by snark-attacks to other threads.

Recommendation considered and rejected.

Look, I can see you are dedicated to this and Grotius is a passion of yours and you really want there to be a connection but this is completely and utterly bonkers.

Your concept of causality is nuts. You are arguing that an ancient Roman conflict has parallels with a Book of Mormon account. Okay, but you present this as evidence Grotius wrote it because he knew of the Roman conflict. That implies Grotius changed that account to match what he knew. If the Book of Mormon account is accurate and not changed then his knowing of the Roman conflict is meaningless. There is no way to spin that as evidence of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. If anything it is evidence Grotius made it up. Same with the rest. If the Book of Mormon was tied entirely to what Grotius knew (which I do not concede) then this is a new Spaulding theory about how the Book is a fraud or a fictional morality tale. Yet you want to hold on to this theory and the idea that the Book of Mormon is an authentic historical account with this theory that suggests it is, in face, not. 

It is like suggesting the Lord of the Rings trilogy is definitely an authentic historical account because elements of it can be tied to what Tolkien believed and is based in things he knew about ancient history. It suggests the EXACT OPPOSITE!