Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

[Exiled]

5 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

So Joseph Smith, with the support of his Universalist family, wrote an anti-universalist tract to rescue the Bible from the threat of universalist theologies like those found in Mormonism two years after the publication of the Book of Mormon. This is what Brigham Young said about D&C 76, revealed in 1832:

"When God revealed to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon that there was a place prepared for all, according to the light they had received and their rejection of evil and practice of good, it was a great trial to many, and some apostatized because God was not going to send to everlasting punishment heathens and infants, but had a place of salvation, in due time, for all, and would bless the honest and virtuous and truthful, whether they ever belonged to any church or not. It was a new doctrine to this generation, and many stumbled at it." - from Universalism and the Revelations of Joseph Smith

Its difficult for me to fathom anyone could do such a massive Universalist flip-flop two years after writing all that nuanced anti-Universalist rhetoric.

Do you believe Joseph Smith was the author of both the Book of Mormon and D&C 76? 

I think JS was conflicted as his mother was anti-universalist but his father was universalist. Also, people flip-flop all the time and act irrationally. JS was constantly changing his views so it isn't surprising that he wrote the book of mormon, authored D&C 19 and 76 (a kind of universalist hybrid).

[Kevin Christensen]

Another approach to the claims for Universalism in the Book of Mormon:

Quote

The key points in Vogel’s comparison of anti-Universalist rhetoric with the Book of Mormon involve the contemporary parallels to various of Alma’s teachings to Corianton, and parallels to the stories about Nehor and his followers. Indeed, nearly contemporary with the translation of the Book of Mormon, the big buzz within Universalist circles came to be called “The Restorationist Controversy.” Consider the following points in judging the significance of Vogel’s parallels.

Universalism was not a phenomenon confined to Joseph Smith’s time. Vogel does notify the reader that the notion of universal salvation has had a long history, and that some of the key figures in the modern movement based their teachings in part on writings they found in Origen and 1 Clement (both of whom spent a lot of their days in the library).¹⁵⁶ The Universalists and their critics were biblically oriented people who debated Bible issues in a vernacular heavily influenced by Bible language. Bible language is, in turn, heavily formulaic, with authors widely separated in time freely quoting and paraphrasing each other. The Bible is, among other things, a history of people saying the kinds of things people say, and doing the kinds of things people do. Because of this, even after thousands of years, even across many cultural gaps, we find many of the stories comprehensible and relevant.

For example, in introducing the reader to rhetorical criticism, Vogel quotes Leland Griffen on the “crystallization of fundamental issues . . . [and] a time, very likely, when invention runs dry, when both aggressor and defendant rhetoricians tend to repeat their stock of argument and appeal” (pp. 22-23). Nibley’s essays on the Sophic and Mantic should serve as powerful notice of just how far back certain stock arguments can go and how constant they can remain.¹⁵⁷

Vogel cites “Nephi’s characterization of a latter-day group with the motto, “eat, drink, and be merry’ (p. 29) as typical anti-Universalist rhetoric,” and in this case Vogel includes references to 1 Kings 4:20; Ecclesiastes 8:15; Isaiah 22:13; Luke 12:19; and 1 Corinthians 15:32. The attitude is an ancient one (I believe it appears in Gilgamesh),¹⁵⁸ but Vogel nevertheless wants us to see it as a distinctive feature of Universalists as perceived by their opponents during Joseph Smith’s time.

Vogel reminds us that even the earliest Latter-day Saint commentaries on the Book of Mormon called Nehor a Universalist, “likening” what they saw to themselves. Yet nothing that Nehor does in the Book of Mormon would seem unusual to Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel, all of whom vent considerable anger against rival teachers, particularly those who preached for profit.

I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of the evildoers that none doth return from his wickedness. . . .

They say still unto them that despise me, The Lord hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you. (Jeremiah 23:14, 17; cf. Isaiah 1; Jeremiah 7:8-9; 11:8; 18:8-12, 20; 21:8, 14; Ezekiel 7:3; 11:21; 13:22; 18:21-32).

Likewise, little or nothing in Corianton’s arguments and behavior seems out of place in his immediate Hebrew heritage. The story of Eli’s sons reported in 1 Samuel 2:22-25 provides a good example.

Vogel cites the Jezebel in Revelation 2:20-30 in comparison to Corianton’s Isabel (p. 37 n. 14). This is because Dan Peterson, in his “Notes on Gadianton Masonry,” had speculated on connections between the name Isabel and the Jezebel in 1 Kings.¹⁵⁹ The urge to compare Alma’s Isabel to the Jezebel in Revelation, rather than the one in 1 Kings, does show Vogel’s preference for even the appearance of an anachronistic borrowing, even when a viable alternative exists. Notice that Vogel bypasses comment on my citation of Nibley’s observation that “Isabel was the name of the Patroness of Harlots in the religion of the Phoenicians.”¹⁶⁰ Nibley’s suggestion has implications for the issue of whether “Universalist” provides a comprehensive and coherent label for Corianton, or whether he fits an ancient context better. Corianton’s public apostasy and his participation in the sexual rites of a pagan cult would involve a system of beliefs and practices that diverges dramatically from Universalism. Also recall Sorenson’s observation that Mesoamerica “contained a religious system comparable in important ways to that of the Canaanites. The religious ideals and behavior transmitted by the continuing Mesoamerican population would resonate with the naturalistic, Baalist elements in the minds and lives of the less faithful in Lehi’s and Mulek’s groups.”¹⁶¹

In denouncing Corianton’s involvement, Alma uses the term “abominable” in a manner entirely consistent with Jeremiah 2:7-8, 4:1, 8:12, and Ezekiel 16, where the Old World prophets fought against the Baalist practices.

Vogel says that the Book of Mormon argument (2 Nephi 2) that “fear of punishment is a motive for obedience to both civil and divine law . . . makes the same point that one Methodist made in 1820” (p. 33). This point, of course, is also very ancient and very biblical. Deuteronomy says, “Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; A blessing if you obey the commandments . . . and a curse if ye will not obey” (Deuteronomy 11:26-28). Vogel’s point about whether the Lord would save people in their sins or from their sins (pp. 34-35) likewise involves prevalent biblical themes (Jeremiah 7:5-15, 21:14; Ezekiel 18, 33).

In response to my doubt that Universalism was behind Corianton’s concern about foreknowledge of Christ’s coming¹⁶² and his worry about the resurrection, Vogel remarks ambiguously that “Universalists were heterodox in their theology” and “Many Universalists in Joseph Smith’s day were also Unitarians” (p. 37 n. 15). Actually, Cassera’s Universalism in America quotes Abner Kneeland in 1833 as saying that “Universalists believe in the resurrection of the dead.”¹⁶³

Vogel’s most imposing parallels involve the nineteenth-century arguments about restoration, given that Alma lectures Corianton at length on the same topic. Nevertheless, Alma’s teachings about “restoration” recall biblical themes and fit comfortably with the Old World background (Exodus 21:23-24; Deuteronomy 11:26-28; Jeremiah 2:19; 17:10; Ezekiel 18:21-30).¹⁶⁴ Vogel’s Universalists focused on a restitution passage in Acts 3:21 (p. 40), but the Acts passage parallels Isaiah 1:26, which does use the word “restore.”

Alma’s emphasis on restoration is not only biblical, but also consistent with the reports of the Life Review (or Encounter with Deeds) reported in near-death experiences throughout history.¹⁶⁵ One of the early Universalist teachers in England (Dr. George de Benneville 1703-1793, born to French Huguenot parents) based some of his ideas on what a modern researcher would immediately call a near-death account.¹⁶⁶ However, neither the Universalists nor their critics (other than Mormons) cared to resolve the issues by referring to a contemporary revelation (as Alma does). Impressed and challenged by the Deist thinkers, the dominant Universalist teachers based their arguments on Reason.¹⁶⁷

Vogel’s main argument requires that we see Alma as using anti-Universalist rhetoric against Corianton in relation to the main anti-Universalist issue regarding the endless duration of future punishment for mortal sin. Yet, Alma’s own teachings plainly affirm the notion of temporally limited punishment. Alma’s own “eternal torment” (Mosiah 27:29) in an “everlasting burning” (Mosiah 27:28), when encircled about by the “everlasting chains of death,” lasted for three days (Alma 36:16, 18).¹⁶⁸ Likewise, Zeezrom experiences “the pains of hell” (Alma 14:6) for a limited time.

Vogel claims that the Book of Mormon argues for a doctrine of endless duration since punishment is “as eternal as the life of the soul” (Alma 42:16; p. 44). Yet this passage can be understood as referring to the existence of just punishment and blessing through eternity, rather than the infinite and endless application of such.

Vogel cites Book of Mormon references (pp. 36, 45) that indicate the wicked “shall go away into everlasting fire . . . and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end” (2 Nephi 9:16).¹⁶⁹ Vogel quotes Hosea Ballou’s Universalist argument against traditional interpretations to the effect that “the never ending fire was “a state of great trouble of mind, in consequence of conscientious guilt’ ” (p. 45). Vogel fails to observe that Alma agrees and makes it very clear that the imagery symbolizes the torment that comes from a personal sense of guilt (Alma 12:14-15; 36:17; also Jacob 6:9; Mosiah 3:25).

Ironically, Vogel pits Alma against Elhanan Winchester (1751-1797), the leader of the “Restorationist” faction of Universalism, who opposed Murray’s radical Universalism (p. 42). But rather than being anti-Universalist, Alma’s teachings seem more consistent with Winchester’s restorationist position. Some parallels should be natural because both Alma and Winchester draw on biblical precedents. Additionally, Winchester had been influenced by Benneville’s near-death vision, which again would tend to supply certain parallels to Alma.

The lens provided by Vogel’s anti-Universalist context creates the misreadings here. At the beginning of his essay, Vogel had claimed that he would “discuss the Book of Mormon in its nineteenth century context without necessarily making conclusions about its historicity” (p. 21). Further, he reasoned that the “question of the Book of Mormon’s historicity becomes secondary when the rhetorical critic seeks to understand the book’s message to its first readers” (ibid.). However, by neglecting the ancient context and the biblical backgrounds, Vogel draws unjustified conclusions about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Because he has not examined the ancient context, he has no grounds for demonstrating that his data are significant, and he can provide no comparison to show that his paradigm is better. By forcing the text into the context of the nineteenth-century anti-Universalist debate, he frequently misreads the message, and undercuts the significance of the text for modern readers.

From  my Paradigm's Crossed essay here: https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1436&index=8

The way we choose to contextualize the Book of Mormon always makes a difference in what we extract from it.  So the way we value one contextualization over another ought to provide a way to evaluate that is not completely self-referential, not completely dependent on that particular view.  Paradigm choice, Kuhn observed, always involves deciding which paradigm is better, and which problems are more significant to have solved.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

 

[Nevo]

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Its difficult for me to fathom anyone could do such a massive Universalist flip-flop two years after writing all that nuanced anti-Universalist rhetoric.

It's a puzzle, to be sure. D&C 76 does appear to be in tension with the soteriology of the Book of Mormon (Grant Underwood's article, "'Saved or Damned': Tracing a Persistent Protestantism in Early Mormon Thought" is very good on this). Then there is the curious fact that, in the very month that the anti-Universalist Book of Mormon is published, Joseph dictates a revelation where it is explained that the terms "endless torment" and "eternal punishment" do not actually refer to a punishment without end, but rather to God's punishment, since God is endless (D&C 19:6-12). The famous Universalist preacher Hosea Ballou employed a similar argument in his 1805 Treatise on the Atonement: "I say the word eternal is not applied to the duration of happiness, but to the nature of that life which is brought to light through the gospel; and as that life is of the nature of the unchangeable Deity, we justly believe it to be endless."

Dan Vogel tries to reconcile all this in his book, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, arguing that Joseph was a secret Universalist (per D&C 19) who "pos[ed] as a traditionalist in regard to heaven and hell." I'm not convinced. I think it's quite possible that Joseph was more influenced by Methodist preaching in the mid-1820s than by his father's alleged Universalist sympathies. Joseph reported in his 1838 history that he had felt "somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and . . . felt some desire to be united with them" (JS—H 1:8), and Joseph’s brother William later recalled that "Joseph was one of several hopeful converts [to Methodism]."

Whatever Joseph Smith's own views, the Book of Mormon takes the orthodox line against Universalism. It teaches that an infinite atonement was required to satisfy the demands of justice in order that mercy might be extended to the penitent, while the unrepentant are exposed to the full penalty for breaking the law and must suffer endless punishment. It perpetuates the saved-damned dichotomy entrenched in Protestant thought. D&C 76 broke with that, teaching that God will save (nearly) everyone. But as Underwood's article shows, that took a long time to sink in, even for Joseph.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Nevo

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

I think JS was conflicted as his mother was anti-universalist but his father was universalist. Also, people flip-flop all the time and act irrationally. JS was constantly changing his views so it isn't surprising that he wrote the book of mormon, authored D&C 19 and 76 (a kind of universalist hybrid).

Was his mother anti-universalist? She grew up in a universalist home. Did she ever say she was opposed to universalism?

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

For the same reason that we find anti Masonic sentiments in the BoM and later many Masonic ideas were brought into Mormonism.  Mormonism isn't internally coherent.  It's all over the place with respect to these concepts, and there really isn't any systematized theology.  Those are my two cents, but I suspect that Nevo will have a much more intelligent answer to your query.  :-)  

The theology is coherent enough to determine that it was not very Smith-like. They were treasure-hunting masonic universalists. The Book of Mormon is straight arrow anti-masonic anti-universal anti-priestcraft. 

Has anyone ever done research on Joseph referencing the Book of Mormon narratives after it was published? Did he ever preach the stories of Nehor and Korihor (or any Book of Mormon story) from the pulpit?

Seems to me he didn't write it.

[Nevo]

10 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Is this available online anywhere?

https://archive.org/details/referencestobook00unse

[Exiled]

18 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Was his mother anti-universalist? She grew up in a universalist home. Did she ever say she was opposed to universalism?

I think it was the other way around. JS Sr. was the universalist and had a universalist group in vermont. Lucy was partial to the presberterian church and Rev. Stockton (anti-universalist).

Dan Vogel has some excellent videos on youtube on the subject and are taken from the various books he has written.

[Nevo]

53 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Was his mother anti-universalist? She grew up in a universalist home. Did she ever say she was opposed to universalism?

I don't think it's true that Lucy "grew up in a Universalist home." Bushman writes that "Lucy's mother Lydia, reared in a deacon's house, joined the Congregational church at age thirty after she married Solomon. He gave her full credit for instructing the children in habits of 'piety, gentleness, and reflection,' and for calling them together morning and evening to pray. Lucy said that all of her religious instruction came from her 'pious and affectionate' mother" (RSR, 13).

Lucy's father, in his 1811 conversion narrative (which begins, "I, Solomon Mack..."), says that he "experienced [the Universal principle] through the early part of my life" (20). So Lucy grew up with a Universalist father and Calvinist mother, but received all of her religious instruction from her mother.

[Rajah Manchou]

25 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I think it was the other way around. JS Sr. was the universalist and had a universalist group in vermont. Lucy was partial to the presberterian church and Rev. Stockton (anti-universalist).

According to Bushman, Solomon Mack was also a universalist while Lucy was growing up. I don't think she ever said anything to suggest she was opposed to universalism. She was removed from the member list at that presbyterian church after she didn't show up for over a year and a half.

[Rajah Manchou]

4 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I don't think it's true that Lucy "grew up in a Universalist home." Bushman writes that "Lucy's mother Lydia, reared in a deacon's house, joined the Congregational church at age thirty after she married Solomon. He gave her full credit for instructing the children in habits of 'piety, gentleness, and reflection,' and for calling them together morning and evening to pray. Lucy said that all of her religious instruction came from her 'pious and affectionate' mother" (RSR, 13).

Lucy's father, in his 1811 conversion narrative (which begins, "I, Solomon Mack..."), says that he "experienced [the Universal principle] through the early part of my life" (20). So Lucy grew up with a Universalist father and Calvinist mother, but received all of her religious instruction from her mother.

I'm going off a footnote from New Perspectives in Mormon Studies: Creating and Crossing Boundaries referencing Bushman:



Looks like you found the source in RSR. You're right, her father experiencing the universal principle is not the same as 'growing up in a universalist home'

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

According to Bushman, Solomon Mack was also a universalist while Lucy was growing up. I don't think she ever said anything to suggest she was opposed to universalism. She was removed from the member list at that presbyterian church after she didn't show up for over a year and a half.

Ok. But the fact remains that the book of mormon is clearly anti-universalist and D&C 19 and 76 aren't. Do you think God changed his mind along the way or do you think he was misleading us for faith reasons as D&C 19 seems to be saying?

[Rajah Manchou]

6 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Ok. But the fact remains that the book of mormon is clearly anti-universalist and D&C 19 and 76 aren't. Do you think God changed his mind along the way or do you think he was misleading us for faith reasons as D&C 19 seems to be saying?

I think the person who wrote the anti-universalism in the Book of Mormon is not the same person who authored D&C 76 two years later.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I think the person who wrote the anti-universalism in the Book of Mormon is not the same person who authored D&C 76 two years later.

Right. I forgot your position on the bofm.

[JarMan]

On 3/26/2018 at 8:18 AM, Nevo said:

The Book of Mormon can also be read as a reaction to the 18th-century Enlightenment. Korihor voices skeptical arguments that were much more prominent in the late 18th and early 19th centuries than they were in 16th and the 17th centuries. Korihor makes sense in the age of Thomas Paine—not so much in the age of Hugo Grotius. The Book of Mormon wants to instill Christian faith and save the Bible at a time when both are under threat. Over against the Bible, the Book of Mormon traces its own provenance in painstaking detail and self-consciously furnishes affidavits attesting to its truthfulness.

Korihor makes sense in almost any age. He was essentially an atheist or agnostic. There is no reason to confine him to a specific time. There were certainly atheists in the 17th Century. In fact, Alma’s response to Korihor resembles the arguments Grotius made to his contemporaries who professed there was no God.

Alma said the following in support of the existence of God:

Quote

The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

In Grotius’ “Truth of the Christian Religion” he sets out to “prove” the truth of Christianity. A large part of this is an appeal to the scriptures, but in addressing those who don’t believe in God he says the following:

Quote

Next, the heavenly constellations, but more especially those eminent ones, the sun and moon, have their courses so exactly accommodated to the fruitfulness of the earth, and to the health of animals, that nothing can be imagined more convenient: . . . hence it follows, that there is a superior understanding, at whose command those beautiful bodies afford their perpetual assistance to man, who is placed so far beneath them; which understanding is none other than the Maker of the stars and of the universe. The eccentric motions of the stars, and the epicycles, as they term them, manifestly shew, that they are not the effects of matter, but the appointment of a free agent; and the same assurance we have from the position of the stars, some in one part of the heavens, and some in another; and from the unequal form of the earth and seas: nor can we attribute the motion of the stars in such a direction, rather than another, to any thing else. The very figure of the world, which is the most perfect, viz. round, and all the parts of it inclosed, as it were, in the bosom of the heavens, and placed in wonderful order, sufficiently declare, that these things were not the result of chance, but the appointment of the most excellent understanding: for, can any one be so foolish, as to expect any thing so accurate from chance?

 

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Korihor makes sense in almost any age. He was essentially an atheist or agnostic. There is no reason to confine him to a specific time. There were certainly atheists in the 17th Century. In fact, Alma’s response to Korihor resembles the arguments Grotius made to his contemporaries who professed there was no God.

Alma said the following in support of the existence of God:

In Grotius’ “Truth of the Christian Religion” he sets out to “prove” the truth of Christianity. A large part of this is an appeal to the scriptures, but in addressing those who don’t believe in God he says the following:

 

I don't think Korihor, if interpreted as being an atheist, would make much sense in the ancient world. Atheism as we understand it is relatively modern. There are a few pseudo-atheistic thinkers here and there in antiquity, but we wouldn't think of most of them as atheists today, especially as pertaining to the kinds of traditions that would have informed the Nephites or Lamanites.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#History

 

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Gray

[JarMan]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think Korihor would make much sense in the ancient world. Atheism as we understand it is relatively modern. There are a few pseudo-atheistic thinkers here and there in antiquity, but we wouldn't think of most of them as atheists today, especially as pertaining to the kinds of traditions that would have informed the Nephites or Lamanites.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#History

 

 

Fortunately I’m not making the case for an ancient origin of the Book of Mormon. My 17th Century response to Korihor is right on point and comes directly from my proposed author. The problem with a 19th Century model, in general, is that you have to search all over to find the parallels. There’s no single person to point to as being the source. My explanation for this is that in the intervening 200 years the ideas have diffused and become distributed widely, some here and some there. Many of the ideas made it to Joseph’s immediate environment but these ideas can almost always be traced back to Grotius and his immediate environment. 

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I think the person who wrote the anti-universalism in the Book of Mormon is not the same person who authored D&C 76 two years later.

This is precisely the point I have been making for some time now. The gospel of Joseph is not equivalent to the gospel of the Book of Mormon in some key areas. This fact undermines the Book of Mormon as restoring eternal truths (the traditional model). And it also undermines the Book of Mormon as being produced by Joseph (the freestyling Joseph model). However, it fits with the Book of Mormon as a work produced by someone other than Joseph (various models, including a 17th Century model). 

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Fortunately I’m not making the case for an ancient origin of the Book of Mormon. My 17th Century response to Korihor is right on point and comes directly from my proposed author. The problem with a 19th Century model, in general, is that you have to search all over to find the parallels. There’s no single person to point to as being the source. My explanation for this is that in the intervening 200 years the ideas have diffused and become distributed widely, some here and some there. Many of the ideas made it to Joseph’s immediate environment but these ideas can almost always be traced back to Grotius and his immediate environment. 

What about apparent references to American nationalism and religious freedom?

[JarMan]

Can you provide an example of “American nationalism” in the Book of Mormon?

As far as religious freedom, I think the Book of Mormon is clearly a better match for Grotius than 19th Century America. A large part of religious freedom in Joseph’s day was the idea of separation of church and state. Yet we never see this idea contemplated in the Book of Mormon.

Much of 17th Century Europe lacked religious freedom, but the Netherlands (for a time) was a notable exception. Each of the provinces within the Dutch Repuplic was free to select its own state religion and religious minorities were officially tolerated in some. This is the same arrangement we see among the different Nephite lands. Eventually this was overthrown and a state religion was imposed on all provinces and people by a leader who was essentially able to make himself king over the Netherlands for a time. Religious minorities were declared heretical. The Book of Mormon describes a very similar story with Amalickiah playing the role of becoming a king and implementing religious change (although eventually failing). Amalickiah even has a similar religion to the historical Dutch Calvinist king whereas the Nephites have the Arminian religion of the Dutch provinces who were forced to submit. This was a notable event in Grotius’ day and resulted in Grotius being imprisoned for life by the new king, although he escaped from prison a few years later.

One of the main religious freedom debates in the first half of the 17th Century was over whether the church had supremacy over the state or whether the state had supremacy over the church. The Book of Mormon addresses this  debate by giving the state supremacy over the church manifested by the secular leaders appointing the priests. This idea is usually attributed to a 16th Century Catholic priest named Erasmus and it was adopted by many contemporary and later reformers such as Tyndale and, notably, Grotius in opposition to the church’s claim of supremacy over kings. Erasmus’ book on the subject, “The Education of a Christian Prince” teaches a monarch how to manage the church and can be seen as a blueprint for righteous Book of Mormon kings. King Benjamin and Mosiah reflect the Erasmian ideal while King Noah is an example of an Erasmian anti-type. So the very idea of righteous kings doing the will of God (or not) and exercising supremacy over the church (or not) is very much a 16th/17th Century discussion. But this discussion is quite out of place in the 19th Century.

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

There were certainly atheists in the 17th Century.

Perhaps, but religious skepticism was not part of the landscape in the early 17th century. That was a post-Enlightenment development. Korihor is not a heathen—the only non-Christians contemplated in Grotius's The Truth of the Christian Religion—but an unbeliever. He invokes the arguments of post-Enlightenment rationalists and skeptics:

• "No man can know of anything which is to come."
• "These things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers."
• "Ye cannot know of things which ye do not see."
• "This derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so."
• "Every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength."
• "When a man was dead, that was the end thereof."

These ideas had currency in western New York in the 1820s. Not so much in the United Provinces in the 1620s.

[Rajah Manchou]

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

Right. I forgot your position on the bofm.

I haven't really shared my full position on the Book of Mormon here. I'm still working through it. But here's where I am at the moment:

• Israelites depart Jerusalem from the 6th century BC and settle in India, East Africa and Southeast Asia. There is evidence of this everywhere, except America.
• Their migrations inspire countless accounts of lost tribes and Rechabites that we find through antiquity up through the enlightenment.
• Around the 16th and 17th centuries, Europeans come in contact with Jewish colonies in the Indies.
• Accounts of battling white and black Jews with brass plates containing their ancient histories in a place called Comorin reach England and the Netherlands.
• Claudius Buchanan's account (Star in the East) of these Jews and their Brass Plates becomes extremely popular in New England in the 1810s and 1820s.
• Star in the East is credited as being the main inspiration for Adoniram Judson and many other Americans to depart from Salem for missions in the East Indies.
• Young Joseph Smith was in Salem during this period of missionary fervor.
• Boudinot tries to capitalize on the success of Star in the East by writing "Star in the West, Or, A Humble Attempt to Discover the Long Lost Ten of Israel".
• Around the time the Smiths were living 5 miles from Dartmouth, two manuscripts about Native American Israelites written by Dartmouth graduates surface.
• Starting in 1828, Joseph Smith tells of a lost book that is revealed to him through an angel in a white robe and glowing letters on a rock. 
• In 1828, American missionaries from the Salem area start talking about a lost book in Burma that is later revealed to a local prophet by an angel in a white robe and glowing letters on a rock. 

That's as far as I've gone. We have not only one instance of a golden book being revealed to American Emmonites, but two. One in Palmyra and one in Moulmein. At the moment the Book of Mormon, and this golden book in Burma, look like the result of an encounter between lost tribe/Rechabite lore and American protestantism.

I don't know how much of these accounts is historical and how much is fiction. I don't know who wrote them. But I'm reserving my conclusions until I can get a translation of this golden book in Burma. Given the cast of characters, I suspect it comes from the same orbit as the Book of Mormon.

[Calm]

On 2018-03-16 at 5:18 PM, clarkgoble said:

Yeah I thought I had a flu that lasted too long thinking maybe I had a minor secondary lung infection. Turned out it was an infection on my heart valve. So I go in for open heart surgery on Monday and have been here in the hospital all week. Although honestly after six hours of antibiotics I felt fine. But there's a big growth on my heart valve now and the valve is damaged. So life comes at you fast.

I just saw a post rep by Clark...good to see that much of you, Clark.  Hope to see more soon, but get if not interested in posting yet (though I did after surgery not being as thoughtful and informed a poster as you are...at the time I was positive I was being profound...it was quite embarrassing the next day to read what I wrote under the influence, I even woke up with a new name as I was too annoyed at having to write out 9 letters when signing in, ah the wonders of pain killers).

Edited March 28, 2018 by Calm

[JarMan]

7 hours ago, Nevo said:

Perhaps, but religious skepticism was not part of the landscape in the early 17th century. That was a post-Enlightenment development. Korihor is not a heathen—the only non-Christians contemplated in Grotius's The Truth of the Christian Religion—but an unbeliever. He invokes the arguments of post-Enlightenment rationalists and skeptics:

• "No man can know of anything which is to come."
• "These things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers."
• "Ye cannot know of things which ye do not see."
• "This derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so."
• "Every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength."
• "When a man was dead, that was the end thereof."

These ideas had currency in western New York in the 1820s. Not so much in the United Provinces in the 1620s.

Korihor’s identity is mysterious. He just shows up one day in Zarahemla and also wanders to other Nephite lands preaching his message. He doesn’t seem to be Nephite. But he doesn’t seem to be Lamanite, either, since the Nephites had just finished clearing the land of Lamanites when he shows up. It’s possible he is a non-believing Nephite from one of the Nephite lands not mentioned in Alma 30-31. Or he could be a complete outsider. . . a ”heathen” in other words.

I think it’s possible Korihor’s message was taught in the early 17th Century. “Theophrastus Redivivus” was published anonymously sometime during the 1600’s, although the date is unknown. 

Quote

Theophrastus redivivus is famous for proclaiming that all the great philosophers, including the eponymous Theophrastus, have been atheists; religions are contrived works of men; there is no valid proof for the existence of gods, and those who claim experience of a god are either disingenuous or ill.

This sounds pretty similar to Korihor. If I was arguing for a pre-1600 model I think Korihor might be anachronistic. But I think my 1635-1645 time period is plausible, particularly since the response to Korihor is such a good match for my model. 

Edit: this page has additional information that supports a date of around the 1650’s with the ideas existing even earlier. 

Edited March 28, 2018 by JarMan

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I just saw a post rep by Clark...good to see that much of you, Clark.  Hope to see more soon, but get if not interested in posting yet (though I did after surgery not being as thoughtful and informed a poster as you are...at the time I was positive I was being profound...it was quite embarrassing the next day to read what I wrote under the influence, I even woke up with a new name as I was too annoyed at having to write out 9 letters when signing in, ah the wonders of pain killers).

At home now trying to recover. Still on lots of drugs so I'll hold off posting much.

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

At home now trying to recover. Still on lots of drugs so I'll hold off posting much.

Glad you're recovering and hope you continue to get well.

Edited March 28, 2018 by hope_for_things