Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

[MormonMason]

On ‎03‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 2:47 PM, JarMan said:

I don't understand what you are saying here. If Joseph read it from the seer stone there is nothing to show. You just have to believe that Joseph had that ability. If he had an actual manuscript he was reading from then you run into the same problems other naturalistic explanations run up against. Maybe those problems are insurmountable, maybe they aren't.

There are close parallels between virtually everything in the Book of Mormon and Grotius' writings and the events in his environment. Besides the obvious references to Joseph and his contemporaries nobody has been able to show me anything in the Book of Mormon that can't be traced to Grotius and his environment. (This reminds me, I still need to offer a reply about Nehor's universalism as it relates to the 17th Century.)  If you think there is something in the Book of Mormon that doesn't fit with 17th Century Europe I'd love to hear it. Perhaps you can give me some more details about the alleged 1Enoch in Helaman.

I have no issue with Joseph Smith having the ability.  That demonstrated ability was what got him off and got him acquitted in the 1830 trial (1826 was the year of the pre-trial examination).  "The testimony of Deacon Stowell could not be impeached" is how the record stated it.  He was witnessed to read a book behind his back using his seer stone, with his face in his hat.  But there is no English translation that would have been available to Joseph Smith, so the manuscript situation is out of the question.  It still would be out of the question because he was seen to bury his face in a hat during translation sessions.  It only could have been through the use of the stone, but why? And why lie about his sources?

So, if everything from the Book of Mormon is in Grotius, please show where in any of the works of Grotius that narrative of Nephi in Bountiful might be found.  I am aware of nothing of the kind in Grotius.

As to Helaman and the and 1 Enoch, without access to my notes and books that would be quite impossible at the present time.  Sorry.  However, you might try looking up related information in Hugh Nibley's Enoch the Prophet.  (This is predicated on my remembering correctly which book it was in.)  But, if you do, be aware that the Enoch notes were misprinted.  The chapter numbering is incorrect of the two locations Nibley referenced.  Unless they fixed that misprint they still are.  I do still have access (with a little digging) to the original Greek Enoch, from whence Nibley obtained that information.  There are connections between the two texts of losing treasure in both texts.  You won't find them in the Ethiopic or an English translation taken therefrom.

[MormonMason]

On ‎03‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 4:05 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

Fragments of Enoch were supposedly available to Kircher and Grotius. Kircher published a few in his Oedipus Aegyptiacus, which also contains translations of the coptic/arabic Nephi manuscript he claimed to have found. Peiresc had heard that Grotius had also done work on the Greek version of Enoch.

There were certainly fragments of Enoch floating around in the 17th century. 

Small fragments.  None associated with the Book of Mormon.  No contents matching the Helaman chapters.  It would not be until after 1933 that the last chapters of Greek 1 Enoch would be found, and some time after that until it would be published, much less translated.

[MormonMason]

On ‎03‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 6:04 PM, JarMan said:

Just to re-iterate the hypothesis, Grotius (or one of his close associates) wrote the Book of Mormon. Not Joseph. Not Mormon.

The reason Joseph might have used the seer stone is that he may not have had the actual manuscript. Joseph was able to read a hidden parchment written by John the Beloved--now known as D&C 7. If he can use the seer stone to read a hidden 1,800 year old manuscript, he can use it to read a hidden 200 year old one.

If it turns out that the fragments floating around in Europe in the 1600's correspond to what is in Helaman then we have a good argument for a 17th Century production over a 19th Century production--that is, if there truly is a correspondence. It's also possible the claimed correspondence is weak and not really notable to begin with. You cited Quinn as source on this. Any chance this is something that can be found online?

As I stated above, I understand the hypothesis.  It is pretty flawed, in my opinion.  Neither Grotius nor his close associates wrote the Book of Mormon.  There is no evidence of such from an internal text standpoint.

I understand about his using a seer stone.  I related above why.  But again, the point of the hypothesis?

None of the Enoch fragments with such concepts as are seen in Helaman, in the time of Grotius or even the entire 19th Century, were extant at that time.  It would not be until 1933 that they would be found.

[MormonMason]

On ‎03‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 10:58 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

Right. Another reason I don't believe Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon.

But Enoch fragments are found earlier than the 1700s. Kircher and Grotius probably worked from Scalinger's translation of the Greek fragments from the writings of Synkellos in the 9th century.

We often say all these texts were "lost", but they weren't lost at all. The motifs found in Enoch and other texts like the History of the Rechabites lived on in many different forms from antiquity through the Middle Ages and beyond. Much of it can be found in Slavonic translations that were never lost. 

Philip Jenkins has written quite a lot on this:
The “Other” Lost Scriptures

The Slavonic texts were unavailable to Joseph Smith or anyone else in America.  Even if they had been, he would have been unable to read them.  Syncellus' Greek fragments contained nothing of the chapters of Greek Enoch that contain the texts in question.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, MormonMason said:

I understand what the hypothesis is.  It makes little to no sense, on the other hand.  One would expect Latinisms in the English text.  I've not seen any.  Grotius did not write the Book of Mormon.  His style would have shown through in an English translation and I have seen none of that in the Book of Mormon.  And, the Isaiah portions in the Book of Mormon have only those affinities with the Latin Vulgate that come to us through the King James Version of the Bible.  Sorry but I just do not see it.

You are making assertions with no evidence. How can you be sure there are no Latinisms in the text? How familiar are you with Grotius' style? And the Isaiah portion came from the KJB as I made clear in my earlier comment. It didn't come from the Latin Vulgate. 

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, MormonMason said:

As I stated above, I understand the hypothesis.  It is pretty flawed, in my opinion.  Neither Grotius nor his close associates wrote the Book of Mormon.  There is no evidence of such from an internal text standpoint.

This is another assertion based, not on a review of any evidence, but on your pre-conceived model for how the Book of Mormon came to be. There is actually abundant evidence tracing the text back to Grotius or his environment. Here is a partial list: Nephite religion including Arminian soteriology, governmental atonement theory, anti-paedobaptism, descriptions of heaven and hell, Garden of Eden story, Satan’s role, faith vs works; Nephite government under kings and judges, including the relationship between church and state and the existence of a republican form of government, ideal forms of government; the dangers of atheism and Universalism; Nephite cultural practices such as the prohibition of slavery, exiling non-believers, and the burning of heretics; Nephite warfare ethics and practices including wars against foreign nations, wars against robbers, civil wars, and civil strife between king men and republicans; the existence and specific tactics and practices of robbers, total warfare, pacifism; Galilean scientific thought in the Book of Mormon; the great and abominable church and anti-Christ, loss of plain and precious parts of the Bible; KJB—both the extended passages and the ubiquitous KJB words and phrases; literary forms like chiasmus, father-to-son letters, Joseph of Egypt’s vaticinium ex eventu in 2 Nephi 3; trans-Pacific colonization of the New World, native Americans as the lost tribes and as Asians proceeding from the tower of Babel; Nephite geography, Arabian peninsula geography.

A blanket dismissal because you don't buy it is not going to be sufficient. The point of the hypothesis is to explain why everything in the Book of Mormon, including the language, points to an Early Modern European origin.

Edited April 2, 2018 by JarMan

[MormonMason]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

You are making assertions with no evidence. How can you be sure there are no Latinisms in the text? How familiar are you with Grotius' style? And the Isaiah portion came from the KJB as I made clear in my earlier comment. It didn't come from the Latin Vulgate. 

Not really.  I have yet to see striking evidence supporting the hypothesis.  I can be sure there are no Latinisms in the text because I haven't seen any.  Maybe I missed some.  Please point out some for me to look over and evaluate.  I am familiar enough with the overall style of Grotius to know that I don't see it in the Book of Mormon.  As to the "KJB" Isaiah portion, I did not write that it was quoted from the Latin Vulgate.  I wrote that the KJV Bible text is itself dependent upon the Latin Vulgate for portions thereof.  Even the name Lucifer is Latin right out of the Latin Vulgate, but transmitted to us through the King James Version.

[MormonMason]

You've gotten a blanket dismissal because you've provided no specific evidence to evaluate.  Let's see more than assertions sans evidence.  Specifics, such as texts and locations, please.

Republican government in the Book of Mormon? Nope.  Kings and judges? Same occurred in the opposite order in the Bible.  Don't need Grotius as a source for related thought.

But most of all, what is the point of your "hypothesis"? From where I sit at the moment it has about as much support in my eyes as the "Malaysian Setting for the Book of Mormon" hypothesis right about now.

Edited April 2, 2018 by MormonMason

[Rajah Manchou]

29 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

From where I sit at the moment it has about as much support in my eyes as the "Malaysian Setting for the Book of Mormon" hypothesis right about now.

False. The Malaysian model, with one supporterhas slightly less support.

[JarMan]

28 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

Not really.  I have yet to see striking evidence supporting the hypothesis.  I can be sure there are no Latinisms in the text because I haven't seen any.  Maybe I missed some.  Please point out some for me to look over and evaluate.

Have you looked for any?

29 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

I am familiar enough with the overall style of Grotius to know that I don't see it in the Book of Mormon. 

Have you read his "Adamus Exul" and compared that to the Garden of Eden story in the Book of Mormon? Have you read "The Law of War and Peace" or "The Free Seas" or "Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty" and compared that to the way the Nephites waged war against foreign governments, robbers, and internally? Have you read "Of the Authority of the Highest Powers About Sacred Things. Or, the Right of the State in the Church" and compared that to the way Nephite governments are set up? Have you read "On the Truth of the Christian Religion" or "On the Satisfaction of Christ Against Faustus Socinus" and compared that to the theology of the Book of Mormon?

Moreover, have you read Tacitus' account of the robber, Tacfarinas, and compared that to the Book of Mormon robbers in 3 Nephi? (Grotius studied ancient Greek and Roman texts and refers to this account in "The Law of War and Peace.") Have you read the Arminian Confession of 1621 and compared that to the theology of the Book of Mormon? Have you read Foxe's "Book of Martyrs" and compared that to the accounts of heretics being burned in the Book of Mormon?

35 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

You've gotten a blanket dismissal because you've provided no specific evidence to evaluate.  Let's see more than assertions sans evidence.  Specifics, such as texts and locations, please.

I've had several threads on this topic over about the last six months. I can't rehash all of the evidence here, but there is a substantial amount.

36 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

Republican government in the Book of Mormon? Nope.  Kings and judges? Same occurred in the opposite order in the Bible.  Don't need Grotius as a source for related thought.

Republican government in the Book of Mormon? This is a definite Yes. But not 19th Century American republican government. The Nephite government under the judges is actually very similar to the 16th/17th Century government of the Dutch Republic. Judges in the Book of Mormon don't resemble judges in the OT nearly as much as they resemble stadtholders in the Netherlands. The Nephite government undergoes very similar internal strife compared to the Dutch Republic. For instance the conflict with the Zoramites in the land of Antionum and the conflict with the king men both resemble conflicts that Grotius was caught up in while he lived in the Netherlands.

44 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

But most of all, what is the point of your "hypothesis"? 

Have you not heard of the several articles by Stanford Carmack that take a detailed look at the syntax, grammar, and language of the Book of Mormon and concludes the original text is consistent with Early Modern English?

I've listed several sources of evidence. Pick one you think isn't related to the Book of Mormon and I'd be happy to engage you on it.

[Glenn101]

17 hours ago, JarMan said:

Grotius would have used the Latin Vulgate. The English translator would have used the KJB.

If an English translator were involved, why would he or she have used the KJB? Why would he or she not just translate the text as Grotius wrote it according to your hypothesis?

17 hours ago, JarMan said:

If there are 19th Century Protestant phrases in the Book of Mormon it is because those phrases are also 17th Century phrases. From the link you provided, here are a few of the claimed 19th Century phrases:

demands of justice - google ngram viewer shows hits for this around 1650; also, Pilgrims' Progress (1678) uses the phrase

infinite atonement - ngram shows hits in the early 1600's; this was a common theme discussed by Armenians in the 1600's, however their writing was largely in Latin

secret combinations - ngram shows hits in the 1670's; others have found this phrase going back to the 1500's

 

Okay, but Grotius died in 1645. That would put your purported English translator making a "loose" translation. But that is just a possible as Grotius writing the Book of Mormon.

17 hours ago, JarMan said:

 Who do you think did the translation?

I hypothesize one or more Early Modern translation events. It's possible there were later revisions, as well. I'm willing to accept whatever the linguistic evidence tells us. I think "by the gift and power of God" is broad enough to be consistent with my hypothesis.

I think that the Holy Ghost did the translation. I see no need for any intermediaries with the Holy Ghost being in charge of the process. I am sure that he is equally facile in any of the languages that man has ever spoken and can switch dialects and languages with ease, whether it be mandarin Chinese, Early Modern English, Latin, or even Pig Latin. Your research is interesting but the evidence supporting your hypothesis is hardly compelling.

Glenn

[MormonMason]

Just another note.  We should be careful not to rely entirely on ngrams, particularly in translated works.  Someone mentioned something or other above something about finding phrases in a certain period in a translation.  One example involved the phrase "demands of justice."  It seemed that this was used to tie its source to a particular period.  Here is a wrench I'll now throw into the above hypothesis' dating machinery.  Just one phrase and variants connected therewith in usage.  Just randomly quoted out of sequence.  I can't be bothered to sort through them at the moment as I am about to run out of time to post in a bit.

Quote

I will make answer for myself, not according to the demands of justice, but according to his wishes.
(NPNF² 3: Rufinus—Writings of Rufinus Apology of Rufinus Ch. Book 2 ¶87)

Now, if injustice has left any place within you for the exercise of prudence in investigating the truth of reports, justice of course demanded that you should examine by whom the report could have been spread among the multitude, and thus circulated through the world.
(ANF 3: Tertullian Part First—Ad Nationes Book 1 Ch. 7 ¶3)

And while some are always assuming to themselves more dominion than meek justice demands, they perish from the Church; and while they insolently extol themselves, blinded by their own swelling, they lose the light of truth.
(ANF 5: Cyprian—Epistles Ch. 50 ¶4)

Therefore He foresaw that there would be faults in His creatures; and the method of His justice demanded that punishment should follow faults, for the sake of amendment.
(ANF 8: Pseudo-Clementine—Recognitions Book 4 Ch. 25 ¶1)

When man, then, had been deceived and beguiled by the wicked demon, let us observe how God treated him, after his committing so great a sin. Did He then altogether destroy him? Yet the reason of the thing in justice demanded this, that one who had displayed nothing that was good, but, after enjoying so much favour, had waxed wanton even from the very first, should be made away with, and utterly destroyed; yet God acted not so; neither did He regard with disgust and aversion him who had been so ungrateful towards his Benefactor, but He comes to him as a physician cometh to a sick man.
(NPNF¹ 9—Statues to the People of Antioch Ch. 7 ¶8)

And thus in fact He is silently dropping seed of much self-restraint, at least in that He commands to retaliate with just the same acts. Yet surely he that began such transgression were worthy of a greater punishment, and this the abstract nature of justice demands. But forasmuch as He was minded to mingle mercy also with justice, He condemns him whose offenses were very great to a punishment less than his desert: teaching us even while we suffer to show forth great consideration.
(NPNF¹ 10: On Matthew Ch. 18 ¶5)

For inasmuch as the Devil used to boast that man had been cheated by his guile into losing the divine gifts, and bereft of the boon of immortality had undergone sentence of death, and that he had found some solace in his troubles from having a partner in delinquency, and that God also at the demand of the principle of justice had changed His own purpose towards man whom He had created in such honour: there was need for the issue of a secret counsel, that the unchangeable God whose will cannot be robbed of its own kindness, might carry out the first design of His Fatherly care towards us by a more hidden mystery; and that man who had been driven into his fault by the treacherous cunning of the devil might not perish contrary to the purpose of God.
(NPNF² 12: Leo—Letters 28 Ch. 3 ¶1)

Something to think about before putting too much trust in ngrams, considering that the Google variant of it did not seem to offer the above I just added to the list.  But you'll notice that the one up top of the few I just posted uses the exact same phrase.  And you'll note that none of these come from Grotius.  All predate him by centuries.

Edited April 2, 2018 by MormonMason

[Rajah Manchou]

3 hours ago, MormonMason said:

The Slavonic texts were unavailable to Joseph Smith or anyone else in America.  Even if they had been, he would have been unable to read them.  

My guess is the evidence to support Enochian material in Helaman is pretty weak because I have never heard it discussed anywhere but in the few vague references to it above.

But let's say Helaman does have it. Are you certain that there was no person in 1830 America who was not familiar with the Slavonic texts? I don't think we can answer this question properly since nobody has done the research into what was available when.

Also, are you certain that the three Enoch texts that James Bruce brought from Ethiopia in 1794 were not known to anybody in the Americas before 1830? For example, are you certain no American had read this before 1830?

Notice du livre d'Enoch
By Antoine-Isaac Silvestre de Sacy

There were a few Americans (eg Jonas King) that studied directly under de Sacy and would have had many opportunities to read, discuss and write about Enoch. Luman Walters also studied in France. Are you certain he hadn't heard all the buzz about Enoch while he was there?

The problem is, if the Book of Mormon (1830) does indeed contain content from Enoch, the most logical conclusion is that someone had access to the conversations about the contents of the text that were in full swing from 1794.

[JarMan]

52 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

If an English translator were involved, why would he or she have used the KJB? Why would he or she not just translate the text as Grotius wrote it according to your hypothesis?

I think it's pretty standard translation practice to use an existing translation when there are extended quotes.

53 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Okay, but Grotius died in 1645. That would put your purported English translator making a "loose" translation. But that is just a possible as Grotius writing the Book of Mormon.

I don't know what you mean by a "loose" translation, or even why it matters. As far as I know Grotius never wrote in English. Latin was the scholarly lingua franca of the day and his preferred language to write in.

54 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I think that the Holy Ghost did the translation. I see no need for any intermediaries with the Holy Ghost being in charge of the process. I am sure that he is equally facile in any of the languages that man has ever spoken and can switch dialects and languages with ease, whether it be mandarin Chinese, Early Modern English, Latin, or even Pig Latin.

We have fundamentally different assumptions about how the Holy Ghost works. And I'm looking for a model where we are not forced into a "God of the gaps" fall back position.

58 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Your research is interesting but the evidence supporting your hypothesis is hardly compelling.

I listed several books that contain the supporting evidence. I realize you are not going to go out and read all of the books for practical reasons. But by the same token, I don't have time to write a books-length analysis of everything either. The point is that until things really start to get published on this subject (I will perhaps try to find some time for some shorter papers) it is way too premature to start making the judgment that the evidence is not compelling.

[Lagrange]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

False. The Malaysian model, with one supporterhas slightly less support.

55555!

 

[Glenn101]

19 minutes ago, JarMan said:

it is way too premature to start making the judgment that the evidence is not compelling.

Compelling evidence is evidence that has been produced. I do not think that you are the first to note some similarities between some of the ideas that Grotius essayed in his published works and some of the doctrines in the Book of Mormon. Going from those similarities to a fictional tale written in Latin then translated a couple of times then somehow transmitted to Joseph Smith is the point for which there has been no evidence introduced.

This sort of sounds like a Spaulding theory. The one that theorizes a second manuscript since the only extant one that has been found bears no resemblance to the Book of Mormon. In your case you have no evidence of manuscript one, two or, three (or more depending on the number of translations you hypothesize).

34 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I listed several books that contain the supporting evidence.

Supporting evidence of an actual manuscript or manuscripts?

Glenn

[Rajah Manchou]

13 minutes ago, Lagrange said:

55555!

ห้าห้าห้า!

[Glenn101]

36 minutes ago, JarMan said:

We have fundamentally different assumptions about how the Holy Ghost works. And I'm looking for a model where we are not forced into a "God of the gaps" fall back position.

I try not to make too many assumptions as to how the Holy Ghost works. It is evident from my own personal experiences, from the experiences that others have published, and the scriptures that the Holy Ghost does not have any one way of operation. I don't know what you mean by a "God of the gaps" in this particular case. It is not a fall back position. It is the forefront position.

I also prefer Joseph's story of the Angel Moroni etc. which is the one that the Holy Ghost has affirmed for me. It answers all of the questions as to how the Book of Mormon came forth, but not necessarily why we find things like EmodE in the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

 

[MormonMason]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

My guess is the evidence to support Enochian material in Helaman is pretty weak because I have never heard it discussed anywhere but in the few vague references to it above.

But let's say Helaman does have it. Are you certain that there was no person in 1830 America who was not familiar with the Slavonic texts? I don't think we can answer this question properly since nobody has done the research into what was available when.

Also, are you certain that the three Enoch texts that James Bruce brought from Ethiopia in 1794 were not known to anybody in the Americas before 1830? For example, are you certain no American had read this before 1830?

Notice du livre d'Enoch
By Antoine-Isaac Silvestre de Sacy

There were a few Americans (eg Jonas King) that studied directly under de Sacy and would have had many opportunities to read, discuss and write about Enoch. Luman Walters also studied in France. Are you certain he hadn't heard all the buzz about Enoch while he was there?

The problem is, if the Book of Mormon (1830) does indeed contain content from Enoch, the most logical conclusion is that someone had access to the conversations about the contents of the text that were in full swing from 1794.

Oh, it was almost all the rage a decade ago.  Not so much these days.  People brought it up.  Others tried to show that Joseph Smith must have had access to a text.  All that failed.  People forgot about it.

Yes, I can be sure that no one in America had access to the Slavonic texts.  Barely the scholars became aware of the material in the recent century.  Far too late for use in LDS scripture.  Someone may have had access to the Ethiopic version, but how many people in frontier America could have done so? It would not have helped, particularly the state of the manuscripts at that time.  Even Laurence had issues in his translation because of the defects in the manuscripts to which he had access.  And then there was the rarity of his European English editions.  They were so rare in even Europe that people had been claiming that the editions had been suppressed by the powers that be.  You think they would be any less rare in America? It was not until the 3rd edition that the Laurence translation became more readily available in America.  That was in 1838.  That was far too late for use in the Book of Mormon.

By the way, none of the Slavonic nor Ethiopic versions of the texts contain the passages I mentioned.  I know because I checked years ago.  People can mention the texts and read the texts but if the particular sections of text weren't available, they weren't available.  What can be done?

The section of the Greek text of 1 Enoch containing the abovementioned texts was not available until 1933, which is when Kenyon published it (without a translation).  That wasn't too long after they found and acquired the text.  The first English translation of this Greek material was undertaken and published in 1937, by Campbell Bonner.  That is way too late for use in the Book of Mormon.  Nice try, though.

[Lagrange]

49 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

ห้าห้าห้า!

For the record Rajah, there are at least two supporters of the slightly mis-nomered "Malay Hypothesis" around these parts.  I, like you, (because you've so thoroughly convinced me) prefer to think of it as the Kamara or Khmer hypothesis. 

[Lagrange]

On 3/8/2018 at 1:29 PM, hope_for_things said:

I agree that Christianity borrowed much from other cultures, this is very clear.  Someone descending from heaven really wouldn't be uniquely christian or even uniquely religious necessarily.  I just think we ought to find something that could uniquely connect the two worlds.  There seem to be more similarities between Buddhism and Christianity than Mesoamerican religions and Christianity from what I can see, and I don't think anyone is proposing that Buddhism and Christianity derive from the same core theological beliefs.  The thing is, the BoM contains all the evolved theology from centuries of Christian thought, yet we can't find evidence for any of it in Mesoamerica. 

 

I think Christianity and Buddhism share more common ground and geographical proximity than most people realize.  Hey, we live in a world where an Israelite prophet, Daniel, presided over Zoroastrian priests.  Boundaries between what we think of as separate and monolithic faiths are far more porous than we realize.

[Rajah Manchou]

48 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

The section of the Greek text of 1 Enoch containing the above mentioned texts was not available until 1933, which is when Kenyon published it (without a translation).  That wasn't too long after they found and acquired the text.  The first English translation of this Greek material was undertaken and published in 1937, by Campbell Bonner.  That is way too late for use in the Book of Mormon.  Nice try, though.

There is no try until you provide more information. I'm aware of the comparison with Moses 6 and 7, but I haven't heard anything about the "connections between the two texts of losing treasure in both texts" in Helaman.

As a Mormon Mason, you already know that Enochian lore is common through a wide range of traditions across a very broad geography. From Thoth to Hermes to Metatron to Zoroaster to Idris to Al Khidr to Padmasambhava to Joseph "Baurak Ale" Smith. Enoch even guides Alexander to the farthest ends of the world. All of this before Kenyon published 1 Enoch.

So there must be more research to do before we can say we tried.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[MormonMason]

"Jarman",

Yes, I've looked for Latinisms, and a lot of other "-isms" in the text of the Book of Mormon over the decades of my life.  Yes, I've read the works of Arminius.  I've read Tacitus.  I've read Foxe's Book of the Martyrs.  Heretics aren't burned in the Book of Mormon.  Some people did burn people and their sacred texts, such as was the case with the people of Ammonihah.  This wasn't tbe buening of heertics. But it also is a fact that others and their texts have been burned all through ancient times, including the time of the Greeks.  This sort of thing goes way back before Grotius.  And what has Tacitus to do with either Grotius or the Book of Mormon?

Yes, I've compared the Book of Mormon description of Adam and Eve with Grotius' Adamus Exul.  Just did it again before I posted this (the text is not all that long).  I've read a lot of Grotius.  I do not recall the titles of all the works I have read, with one exception.  That is Adamus Exul (English:  "The Exile of Adam"), which you brought up.  That is a five act tragedy written by Grotius.  It is not a theological text.  It also is nothing like the Book of Mormon.  Not at all.  If I only referred to this one work to throw another wrench in your hypothesis, it would be sufficient enough.  Here is an English translation of Grotius' Adamus Exul:

Quote

Adam.  And dost thou wish, my lost and fallen one,

That I, too, should desert the righteous laws
Of the sole God, and follow thee to death ?

Eve. Were it not worthier, Adam, to exert
Your own cool balanced reason, than give way

Eve. To blind impression ? for this hasty style
Of prejudice still errs. You have condemned
Your innocent wife unheard. I do confess
I did the deed ; I do deny it wrong.

Adam. Is it then right to break our Lord's command ?

Eve. Yes, if our Lord happen to be unjust.

Adam. If just, we love, if not we ought to bear.

Eve. And is not slavery; think'st thou, worse than death ?

Adam. But to serve God is highest liberty.

Eve.  Is it not higher still to be as God ?

Adam. But to be as God man was never made.

Eve. Yes, this forbidden tree will make him such —
It is the source of knowledge of all good.

Adam. Of knowledge, good and evil, was it not ?

Eve. Ah, but the very God you love to praise
As he knows good, knows he not evil too ?

Adam. That he may never feel it as thou feelest.

Eve. Away with omens ! of the deed I am proud,
And do exult in consciousness of power.

Adam. To obey is virtue's first, her safest course ;
And to repent her second,—to do good
Without all imperfection none can boast,
But to repent is open unto all,
And to return to virtue's blessed lore
Can never be too late. Be wise in time,
The penitent is next to innocence :
Still will Heaven pardon Eve, if she repent.

Eve. How God is moved by prayers of penitence
The fate of Satan sure is proof enough.

Adam. Alas ! what hope is left you ?

Eve. To fear nought.

Adam. But God is to be feared.

Eve. Who fears an equal ?

Adam. But you will die, be sure.

Eve. Nay, I shall live.

Adam. You're worthy death.

Eve. I am better worthy life.

Adam. Oh ! what will you become ?

Eve. What but a goddess ?

Adam. And by what means ?

Eve. By virtue of an apple.

Adam. Which God forbad.

Eve. Because he envied us.

Adam. Is it not impious, think you, to talk thus ?

 

(THE ADAMUS EXUL OF GROTIUS; or the PROTOTYPE OF PARADISE LOST. NOW FIRST TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN, by

FRANCIS BARHAM [LONDON: SHERWOOD, GILBERT, AND PIPER/SIMPKIN & CO./WHITTAKER & CO., 1839], 36-38.)

Yeah, that is just like the story of Adam and Eve in the Book of Mormon alright!  (Not.)

Yes. I am familiar with the general premise of Stanford Carmack.  And it doesn't really support your "Grotius as the source of the Book of Mormon" hypothesis, though you appear to believe that it does.

Now, I really must go for a bit.  I have something I am working on and this subject is a distraction.

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, MormonMason said:

Yes. I am familiar with the general premise of Stanford Carmack.  And it doesn't really support your "Grotius as the source of the Book of Mormon" hypothesis, though you appear to believe that it does.

"Mormon Mason",

You seem well read on the topic. In your opinion, where did the Book of Mormon come from?

Edited April 3, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, MormonMason said:

"Jarman",

Yes, I've looked for Latinisms, and a lot of other "-isms" in the text of the Book of Mormon over the decades of my life.  Yes, I've read the works of Arminius.  I've read Tacitus.  I've read Foxe's Book of the Martyrs.  Heretics aren't burned in the Book of Mormon.  Some people did burn people and their sacred texts, such as was the case with the people of Ammonihah.  This wasn't tbe buening of heertics. But it also is a fact that others and their texts have been burned all through ancient times, including the time of the Greeks.  This sort of thing goes way back before Grotius.  And what has Tacitus to do with either Grotius or the Book of Mormon?

Yes, I've compared the Book of Mormon description of Adam and Eve with Grotius' Adamus Exul.  Just did it again before I posted this (the text is not all that long).  I've read a lot of Grotius.  I do not recall the titles of all the works I have read, with one exception.  That is Adamus Exul (English:  "The Exile of Adam"), which you brought up.  That is a five act tragedy written by Grotius.  It is not a theological text.  It also is nothing like the Book of Mormon.  Not at all.  If I only referred to this one work to throw another wrench in your hypothesis, it would be sufficient enough.  Here is an English translation of Grotius' Adamus Exul:

Yeah, that is just like the story of Adam and Eve in the Book of Mormon alright!  (Not.)

Yes. I am familiar with the general premise of Stanford Carmack.  And it doesn't really support your "Grotius as the source of the Book of Mormon" hypothesis, though you appear to believe that it does.

Now, I really must go for a bit.  I have something I am working on and this subject is a distraction.

I don't consider it good form to sneer at a hypothesis, claim there is no evidence for it, and then when challenged, pretend it is beneath your dignity to support your position.

Regarding the burning of heretics, there was a lengthy thread about it not too long ago. I'm not going to rehash it all, but your claims are amply refuted in that thread if you care about examining the evidence. As far as Tacitus, his account of the robber Tacfarinas bears an extremely close resemblance to the Gadianton Robbers in the Book of Mormon. I can give you a blow by blow comparison of close to 20 parallels if you really want to look at evidence. Grotius was aware of the story of Tacfarinas and worked it into the text.

Regarding Adamus Exul, strangely you have claimed it bears no resemblance to the Book of Mormon. So I'll give you some evidence to support my claim that it does. Parallels between the Book of Mormon and Adamus Exul are potentially significant if they are not also found in the Old Testament. This is the case with the portrayal of Satan: 1) Satan is an angel cast down from heaven. 2) Satan is the serpent in the garden tempting Adam and Eve. 3) Satan becomes the ruler of hell. 4) Satan's motive is to make mankind miserable like he is. 5) Satan tempts mankind on earth to bring them into his kingdom. 6) Satan has his own army of angels. None of these characteristics of Satan are found in the OT. But all of them are found in both Adamus Exul and the Book of Mormon. We also have the portrayal of hell as: 1) a place for the wicked, 2) referred to as a pit, 3) everlasting burning, 4) those in hell are bound by chains, 5) endless guilt and torment for sins. Again, none of these are found in the OT. All of them are found in Adamus Exul and the Book of Mormon.