Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Physics Guy said:

Quote

The Joseph-Smith-Gleaned-Extensive-Information-About-the-Middle-East-and-Mesoamerica-by-Hanging-out-with-Hebrew-speaking-Armenians argument is likewise not a strong one.

Is there any evidence that Joseph Smith interacted with these folks in any meaningful way and for any appreciable amount of time?  That they shared with him information which he could have used to write the Book of Mormon?

Isn't this like being impressed by a stage magician who has made an assistant vanish with a swirl of his cape, then finding a trap door on the stage, but saying, "The argument that the assistant jumped through the trap door while the cape was swirling isn't a strong one, because no-one who's talking actually saw the assistant jump down the hole"?

I don't think so.  Magicians, after all, are presenting illusions.  It's simply a matter of hiding how the assistant appears to have vanished, not that the assistant actually has vanished.

In contrast, in our circumstances we have . . . the text.  There is no "trap door," no exposed chicanery, no "this is how it was done."

"Where did the Book of Mormon come from?"  That's the basis of this thread.  If you want to say "Well, it's like a trap door in a magicians' act," I'm okay with that.  But then, what is the trap door?  What is your explanation for the text of the Book of Mormon?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 23, 2018 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  Magicians, after all, are presenting illusions.  It's simply a matter of hiding how the assistant appears to have vanished, not that the assistant actually has vanished.

In contrast, in our circumstances we have . . . the text.  There is no "trap door," no exposed chicanery, no "this is how it was done."

"Where did the Book of Mormon come from?"  That's the basis of this thread.  If you want to say "Well, it's like a trap door in a magicians' act," I'm okay with that.  But then, what is the trap door?  What is your explanation for the text of the Book of Mormon?

Thanks,

-Smac

It looks pretty much the way you'd expect a 19th-century American fictional history with Biblical themes to look, so my guess is that's what it is. 

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

It looks pretty much the way you'd expect a 19th-century American fictional history with Biblical themes to look, so my guess is that's what it is. 

This sentiment is why I like Richard L. Anderson's essay comparing the Book of Mormon with other Modern Gospels:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=939

and John Gee's "The Wrong Type of Book".  

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1082&index=10

And Nibley's "Just Another Book?"

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1112&index=7

And Robert Rees on "The Book of Mormon and the American Renaissance"

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V35N03_91.pdf

It's why I like Harold Bloom's pathetically inaccurate supposition of what the Book of Mormon is, based on what he thought the book ought to be (a Lost 10 Tribes story), as a 19th Century American fictional history with Biblical themes (see the Mormon chapters of The American Religion). He found it so easy to explain that he admitted to a student that he never bothered to read it, which, also explains the disconnect between the actual content and his description.  Oddly same disconnect applies to Michael Coe (see the Dehlin interview), who actually did read it once upon a time.

It's why I have been impressed by both my own, and many other comparisons of the content of the Book of Mormon with material that was simply not available in the 19th century.  The book keeps surprising me.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Kevin Christensen said:

This sentiment is why I like Richard L. Anderson's essay comparing the Book of Mormon with other Modern Gospels:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=939

and John Gee's "The Wrong Type of Book".  

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1082&index=10

And Nibley's "Just Another Book?"

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1112&index=7

And Robert Rees on "The Book of Mormon and the American Renaissance"

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V35N03_91.pdf

It's why I like Harold Bloom's pathetically inaccurate supposition of what the Book of Mormon is, based on what he thought the book ought to be (a Lost 10 Tribes story), as a 19th Century American fictional history with Biblical themes (see the Mormon chapters of The American Religion). He found it so easy to explain that he admitted to a student that he never bothered to read it, which, also explains the disconnect between the actual content and his description.  Oddly same disconnect applies to Michael Coe (see the Dehlin interview), who actually did read it once upon a time.

It's why I have been impressed by both my own, and many other comparisons of the content of the Book of Mormon with material that was simply not available in the 19th century.  The book keeps surprising me.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Of that I have no doubt. I actually have read the book, oddly enough, many times. In fact, I've read the three pieces you link to, including Rees's update on The Interpreter in 2016 (IIRC). What you see as "blanket dismissal" is just me having once upon a time found those kinds of things as compelling as you do, but after revisiting them, not so much. It's OK. I am not criticizing you or your approach. I am just not impressed by this kind of stuff. 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It looks pretty much the way you'd expect a 19th-century American fictional history with Biblical themes to look, so my guess is that's what it is. 

I think its pretty clear that Joseph was borrowing from all kinds of sources in the 19th century.  I attended a recent event at Benchmark Books with some of the authors and editors of this new book that was just released and I'm currently reading: https://www.amazon.com/Foundational-Texts-Mormonism-Mark-Ashurst-McGee/dp/0190274379/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1521822798&sr=8-1&keywords=foundational+texts+of+mormonism

It's really interesting.  One of the essays is on the JST and different sources that influenced its creation.  I spoke with Dr. Wayment afterwards, he's the BYU professor who last year announced some findings about how Joseph was using Adam Clarke bible commentary in the creation of the JST.  

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

What he also told me is that he's finding interesting evidence that the Septuagint was also a source used.  We know about Apocryphal parallels as well and those are interesting.  I'm hoping to attend a guest lecture next week at BYU's Maxwell Institute where an author will be talking about John Milton's Paradise Lost and its influence on Mormonism.  

I find all these things fascinating, and from my perspective strong evidence that the BoM and all other products dictated by Joseph are squarely rooted in the 19th century.  

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think its pretty clear that Joseph was borrowing from all kinds of sources in the 19th century.  I attended a recent event at Benchmark Books with some of the authors and editors of this new book that was just released and I'm currently reading: https://www.amazon.com/Foundational-Texts-Mormonism-Mark-Ashurst-McGee/dp/0190274379/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1521822798&sr=8-1&keywords=foundational+texts+of+mormonism

It's really interesting.  One of the essays is on the JST and different sources that influenced its creation.  I spoke with Dr. Wayment afterwards, he's the BYU professor who last year announced some findings about how Joseph was using Adam Clarke bible commentary in the creation of the JST.  

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

What he also told me is that he's finding interesting evidence that the Septuagint was also a source used.  We know about Apocryphal parallels as well and those are interesting.  I'm hoping to attend a guest lecture next week at BYU's Maxwell Institute where an author will be talking about John Milton's Paradise Lost and its influence on Mormonism.  

I find all these things fascinating, and from my perspective strong evidence that the BoM and all other products dictated by Joseph are squarely rooted in the 19th century.  

I agree. That's not a conclusion I came to lightly, but it's what makes the most sense to me. 

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I agree. That's not a conclusion I came to lightly, but it's what makes the most sense to me. 

I guess you're just an "Evil Apostate" after all.  

[jkwilliams]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

I guess you're just an "Evil Apostate" after all.  

You have no idea.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Joseph was mostly confined to his bed and crutches during the Dartmouth years. I think the idea is that Hiram, who attended Moor's Charity School (the original "Dartmouth"), hung around campus talking with people like Ethan Smith's son, Solomon Spaulding's nephews and a number of other students that became American's first set of missionaries to the natives in America, India and Burma. These were Hiram's classmates at Dartmouth.

Imagine being bed-ridden for years, and talking for hours on end with your brother who was going to school learning all sorts of interesting things. What would you talk about?

The chores that weren’t getting done. The weather. A lame horse. A cute neighbor girl. Are you aware of any of the affidavits and reminisces that were collected about a Joseph and his family or the writings and comments of others that knew him reveal any such influence?

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It looks pretty much the way you'd expect a 19th-century American fictional history with Biblical themes to look, so my guess is that's what it is. 

Like, say, Spalding and Ethan Smith?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

Like, say, Spalding and Ethan Smith?

No, like the Book of Mormon.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

There's also a list of things commonly associated with Mesoamerica that aren't found in the Book of Mormon.

If we're going by literal interpretations of the material culture found in the Book of Mormon, there is only one limited geography that fits.

Silk? That narrows down our scope. Where was silk found during Book of Mormon times?
Elephants. Where can we find domesticated elephants in 2000 BC?
Cimeters. Iron swords. Horses. Chariots.

We cannot place these things in the Americas and remain within the boundaries of scientific data. It just can't be done.

There is only one place in the world that had the material culture found in the Book of Mormon. 

At the time the BoM was translated I highly doubt Joseph knew his setting was in Mesoamerica. My point is simply that one could reasonably expect to find such words in an imaginative romance about Native Americans written by an untutored  upstate New York farmer in the early 1800s, just as they are found in all the writings of folks like Fennimore Cooper, Washington Irving, Longfellow, Hawthorne, Solomon Spalding, Ethan Smith, newspapers and novels etc. It’s curious. That’s all I’m saying. 

[Rajah Manchou]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The chores that weren’t getting done. The weather. A lame horse. A cute neighbor girl. Are you aware of any of the affidavits and reminisces that were collected about a Joseph and his family or the writings and comments of others that knew him reveal any such influence?

Like anything in early Mormon history, bits and pieces scattered here and there give some insight. The William Hyde interviews are interesting. Hyde said Joseph Smith Sr. as "always appeared to be in a deep study" and "from the time of his first visit until his religious scheme was sprung I don't believe he missed a night without stopping with me for at least three hours. There wasn't a subject he couldn't discuss intelligently, and my opinion of him was high. His memory was something extraordinary. He could repeat several chapters of a book verbatim after it had been read rapidly." That's some remarkable insight into what we could expect to find in the Smith home.

Lucy also famously said that Joseph Jr. would sit with the family and tell stories about the natives and all their activities. Sure there must have been some talk about chores and weather, but I feel we underestimate how much the Smiths, especially Sr.,  enjoyed talking for hours with friends and acquaintances, telling stories about obscure topics like sunken continents and native americans. While living in Norwich, near Dartmouth, Sr sold concessions. I would assume he met a lot of people associated with Dartmouth. The narratives in the Book of Mormon could have started taking shape when the family moved near Dartmouth and Sr had his earliest visions, at least two of those visions show some familiarity with the visions of Lehi.

In another example, the Fayette Lapham interviews with Sr. show his familiarity with the Book of Mormon narratives around the time it was published, suggesting the Smiths were talking about the stories, possibly before publication. 

[Rajah Manchou]

26 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

At the time the BoM was translated I highly doubt Joseph knew his setting was in Mesoamerica. My point is simply that one could reasonably expect to find such words in an imaginative romance about Native Americans written by an untutored  upstate New York farmer in the early 1800s, just as they are found in all the writings of folks like Fennimore Cooper, Washington Irving, Longfellow, Hawthorne, Solomon Spalding, Ethan Smith, newspapers and novels etc. It’s curious. That’s all I’m saying. 

Yeah, this is one of the reasons I don't believe Joseph was the author. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

No, like the Book of Mormon.

Yep  

[JarMan]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess you don't understand the distinction between written records and other archeological data.  Where both exist, they complement each other.  Where written records (and ethnography) don't exist, which is nearly all the time, the archeologist must depend upon other evidence.  You seem to think the absence of written records spells the death knell of any possibility of recovering an ancient culture, a very common misconception.  In fact a great deal can be said about any non-literate culture.

Here you contradict yourself.  On the one hand, you claim that written records are absolutely essential, but then claim that the BofM is of no value archeologically.  Why?  You apparently believe that the BofM contains nothing which can be correlated to archeology, which is absurd.  There are hundreds of assertions in the text which can be examined archeologically.  Indeed, it is a goldmine of assertions on everything from absolute chronology, geography, language & linguistics, and measuring systems to literary structure and poetry.  You say that written records are important, but then you pooh-pooh them.

I don't know what you have been reading, but everything involves interpretation.  Indeed, there are no facts, only interpretation of facts.  Scholars don't complain about interpretation, because all there is is interpretation.  You need to deal with the real world, JarMan, as I do in my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at  http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

You and Bushman may prefer written sources, and that is understandable, but that is because you are not archeologists.  You are wrong about which form of evidence should be preferred.  Both have their place.  You need to be much more restrained about what is relevant, JarMan.

I'm not sure if you are deliberately mis-representing my position or if I just haven't done a good enough job of explaining it. I'll assume the latter and attempt here to restate it in hopes that you can address what I am actually saying. The Book of Mormon is primarily a book of religious and cultural ideas. The best sources for comparing religious and cultural ideas are (obviously) other writings about religious and cultural ideas. Archaeology, though important, is a secondary source of information. Archaeology in areas that don't correspond to the time and place of the Book of Mormon peoples is a tertiary source of information. Therefore, archaeological correlations with the Book of Mormon is largely of tertiary importance. This seems rather obvious to me.

[JarMan]

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It looks pretty much the way you'd expect a 19th-century American fictional history with Biblical themes to look, so my guess is that's what it is. 

Well there are other 19th Century American fictional histories with biblical themes. Which ones do you think it resembles?

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Well there are other 19th Century American fictional histories with biblical themes. Which ones do you think it resembles?

You can't possibly be unaware of the long standing critiques suggesting similarities between the Book of Mormon and a host of other contemporary books, are you?

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

Is this a quote from the book regarding the preClassic Maya, or is this your professional opinion??  I think you are pretending that Friedel has changed his mind, that he agrees with you, but it is only a rhetorical trick to conflate your opinion  with his.

I gave no indication of quoting Schele & Freidel, and didn't need to.  Nor did I conflate my opinions with either of them.  Where do you get this stuff, cdowis?  Perhaps you live in a world of Jedi mind tricks, and are trying to practice one on me and the innocent readers, but why?  Our only concern here should be professional archeology and anthropology, which doesn't seem to interest you.

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

Inscriptions are written by the rich and powerful, and unlikely to tell us "a great deal" about the real story with critical details -- that "great deal" will come from the written records of ordinary people.

Yes, and this is generally true throughout history, whether dealing with the inscriptions of Maya lords, Egyptians, Israelites, Mesopotamians, etc.  We seldom see any inscriptions or writings of the common people.  However, we already knew that, and have long worked within such limitations.  I know of no scholar who agrees with your assertion that we therefore do not know a great deal about ancient cultures.

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

  I am very surprised at your naivety but I give you the last word if you want to persist in your assertions.

You are very surprised because you have no training in anthropology or archeology, and so have no basis upon which to make judgments about any of this.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are very surprised because you have no training in anthropology or archeology, and so have no basis upon which to make judgments about any of this.

I wish to compliment you on your ongoing commitment to humility and patience in your discussions with others.*

 

 

 

 

*Yes, that was sarcasm.

[jkwilliams]

41 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You can't possibly be unaware of the long standing critiques suggesting similarities between the Book of Mormon and a host of other contemporary books, are you?

I think what he’s after is for me to come up with a “source” text to compare with the Book of Mormon, which would be absurd. I think Foucault’s Archaeology of Knowledge is a good approach: a text is a point within an endless web of language and culture, and that point reflects the other cultural and textual points closest to it. Culturally and linguistically I think the Book of Mormon clearly occupies a point solidly in the nineteenth century. 

I’m well aware others disagree with my conclusions, and that’s totally fine. 

[cdowis]

del

Edited March 23, 2018 by cdowis

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

You can't possibly be unaware of the long standing critiques suggesting similarities between the Book of Mormon and a host of other contemporary books, are you?

Of course I'm not unaware. I just think the proposed similarities are ridiculous.

40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think what he’s after is for me to come up with a “source” text to compare with the Book of Mormon, which would be absurd. I think Foucault’s Archaeology of Knowledge is a good approach: a text is a point within an endless web of language and culture, and that point reflects the other cultural and textual points closest to it. Culturally and linguistically I think the Book of Mormon clearly occupies a point solidly in the nineteenth century. 

I’m well aware others disagree with my conclusions, and that’s totally fine. 

I agree the Book of Mormon is of modern origin. I disagree about the century and the continent. There are texts that have very solid correlations with the Book of Mormon. Milton's "Paradise Lost" (Europe, 1667), which was previously mentioned, is an excellent example. Erasmus' "Education of a Christian Prince" (Europe, 1516) is another solid example. Grotius' "On the Law of War and Peace" (Europe, 1625) may be the best secular example of them all. I even see an excellent correlation with portions of Tacitus' "Annals of the Roman Empire" (Europe, 1st Century, but studied and cited regularly in the 1600's). Then there is Episcopius' "Arminian Confession" (Europe, 1621). Even Galileo's works "Discourse on Floating Bodies" (Europe, 1612) and "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (Europe, 1632) have something to potentially say about the Book of Mormon. And of course the obvious elephant, here, is the King James Bible (Europe, 1611). Take the ideas of these books, throw in some 16th/17th Century European history and culture and you get about 90% of the source material for the Book of Mormon.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, JarMan said:

Of course I'm not unaware. I just think the proposed similarities are ridiculous.

I agree the Book of Mormon is of modern origin. I disagree about the century and the continent. There are texts that have very solid correlations with the Book of Mormon. Milton's "Paradise Lost" (Europe, 1667), which was previously mentioned, is an excellent example. Erasmus' "Education of a Christian Prince" (Europe, 1516) is another solid example. Grotius' "On the Law of War and Peace" (Europe, 1625) may be the best secular example of them all. I even see an excellent correlation with portions of Tacitus' "Annals of the Roman Empire" (Europe, 1st Century, but studied and cited regularly in the 1600's). Then there is Episcopius' "Arminian Confession" (Europe, 1621). Even Galileo's works "Discourse on Floating Bodies" (Europe, 1612) and "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (Europe, 1632) have something to potentially say about the Book of Mormon. And of course the obvious elephant, here, is the King James Bible (Europe, 1611). Take the ideas of these books, throw in some 16th/17th Century European history and culture and you get about 90% of the source material for the Book of Mormon.

I understand where you’re coming from, but for my money, there’s an awful lot of frontier American Protestant culture, practice, and mythology that doesn’t fit an earlier production. Obviously you disagree. 

[JarMan]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I understand where you’re coming from, but for my money, there’s an awful lot of frontier American Protestant culture, practice, and mythology that doesn’t fit an earlier production. Obviously you disagree. 

I'm genuinely interested in what you think is 19th Century but not 17th Century. I have found very little (besides the obvious references to Joseph) that can't be just as easily related to the 17th Century. 19th Century frontier-American Protestant culture directly descends from 17th Century European Protestantism, after all. To me it seems like the precise areas where we find a discontinuity between the two cultures is precisely where we find something in the Book of Mormon that doesn't fit Joseph's world. The ideal form of government and church-state relations are the two examples I previously brought up.