Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

[JarMan]

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Compelling evidence is evidence that has been produced.

The evidence is the works I cited, as well as several others I didn't cite. It's really the interpretation and presentation of the evidence that I think you are talking about as lacking. We have close to 200 years of people looking at Joseph's environment to try to explain the Book of Mormon. I've been underwhelmed by these efforts. But with Carmack's and Skousen's work now we know we've been looking in the wrong place this whole time. Their work, in my opinion, is the most important Book of Mormon scholarship to date.

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

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.

Nor will I be the last. I am convinced there is a massive amount of important work that needs to be done by scholars and others to better understand the 17th Century connection.

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

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).

Supporting evidence of an actual manuscript or manuscripts?

Glenn

I am positive that Joseph didn't freestyle the Book of Mormon. Thus, in my mind, it was based on a "manuscript." Maybe that manuscript is the gold plates. Maybe it's something else. In either case we don't have the manuscript. So we have to infer where that manuscript came from based on clues in the text. You are confusing evidence for a physical manuscript (I agree there is none) with inferred evidence based on the text (this exists in abundance).

[Glenn101]

18 hours ago, JarMan said:

You are confusing evidence for a physical manuscript (I agree there is none)

I am asking for evidence of a manuscript written by Grotius and translated by an Englishman. We have eyewitnesses for the existence of the plates and the manner of the production of the text.

Glenn

Edited April 3, 2018 by Glenn101
spelling

[MormonMason]

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I am asking for evidence of a manuscript written by Grotius and translated by an Englishman. We have eyewitnesses for the existence of the plates and the manner of the production of the text.

Glenn

Which exactly is why I keep asking the question (but not seeing an answer thereto) as to what is the point of the hypothesis? Jarman, if you are reading this post, what exactly is the point of the hypothesis? A good hypothesis usually has some kind of a point behind it, valid or invalid.  Here is yet another wrench in the claims about what Grotius states as opposed to comparison to the Book of Mormon.

Jarman claims that Grotius allegedly speaks of hell as a pit and the devil as having a kingdom, and this is in the Book of Mormon.  Thus, he claims, Grotius is the source of the Book of Mormon.  Aside from the logical fallacy involved, he does not consider that Grotius gets his ideas from older sources.  He also does not seem to be aware of the contents of the Old and New Testaments.

Quote

Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
(Isaiah 14:15)

25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
(Matthew 12:25–26)

Both of the above texts predate Grotius, though the translation does not.

Edited April 4, 2018 by MormonMason

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, MormonMason said:

Which exactly is why I keep asking the question (but not seeing an answer thereto) as to what is the point of the hypothesis? Jarman, if you are reading this post, what exactly is the point of the hypothesis? A good hypothesis usually has some kind of a point behind it, valid or invalid.  Here is yet another wrench in the claims about what Grotius states as opposed to comparison to the Book of Mormon.

Jarman claims that Grotius allegedly speaks of hell as a pit and the devil as having a kingdom, and this is in the Book of Mormon.  Thus, he claims, Grotius is the source of the Book of Mormon.  Aside from the logical fallacy involved, he does not consider that Grotius gets his ideas from older sources.  He also does not seem to be aware of the contents of the Old and New Testaments.

Both of the above texts predate Grotius, though the translation does not.

With a little research it appears the word "sheol" is rendered "pit" three times in the King James Old Testament. So I will withdraw that particular correspondence.

I am well aware that some of the concepts appear in the New Testament. But, of course the Nephites didn't have the New Testament when they produced the Book of Mormon. It's pretty mysterious that a 6th Century BC Jew gives us a version of satan and hell that didn't exist during that time and wouldn't for another couple of thousand years. These ideas appear to have began to develop during the exile as Jews came into contact with other religions. By the time of the NT we have some, but definitely not all, of the items on my lists checked off. The other ideas are variously developed throughout Christianity and then about 1600 we get Grotius' work that brings all the ideas together in an epic founding myth of humanity. Maybe there's a work that pre-dates Grotius that does the same thing. I'm not aware of one and it really doesn't matter if there is or not. The point is that these ideas were developed long after Nephi's time.

So the question seems to be Why Grotius? To answer that question I'll need to start with this. People have noticed from the earliest years that the Book of Mormon is anachronistic from beginning to end. The natural inclination of the critics has been to attribute its production to Joseph Smith or one of his contemporaries. The m.o. has been to find Book of Mormon parallels potentially existing in Joseph's environment. From a comparative standpoint the Book of Mormon seems to be 19th Century instead of ancient. From a purely scholarly standpoint it's obvious the 19th Century is a better match, although the apologists have done a commendable job of making a plausible case for historicity.

Personally, I don't buy the traditional model or the 19th Century model. The traditional model is crumbling under the weight of anachronisms and the 19th Century model is dependent on somebody in Joseph's environment having a whole bunch of knowledge that was scattered far and wide. Reading Skousen's and Carmack's work has helped me understand that we've been looking in the wrong place to find the source of the Book of Mormon. The English of the text is early modern so it's hardly a quantum leap to wonder if the text was actually produced in the early modern period. I've asked myself before if the Book of Mormon is consistent with the knowledge available from an 1829 perspective. The answer is almost certainly yes. Well, let's play that game and back up a few years. 1820? Yes. 1800? Yes. 1700? Still yes. 1600? Nope. It can't be from 1600 because the text is so dependent on the 1611 KJB. So from a scholarly perspective it had to be produced between 1611 and 1829.

If you start working forward from 1611 by studying the religious discussions and history of Europe it becomes clear pretty quickly that there is a convergence of Book of Mormon ideas centered on the Dutch Arminians. As you begin to look at the influential Arminians, their writings, and life events, Hugo Grotius clearly stands out as the person with all the qualifications. To produce the Book of Mormon you need to be a master of literature, religion, war, law, government, history, and the bible. Grotius has all of those covered. But it's not enough to just have the expertise. You also need to have ideas that are consistent with the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon clearly couldn't have been written by a Calvinist, for example. Or an Anabaptist. Or a Jew. Or a Catholic. An Arminian? Yes. But not just any Arminian. Many Arminians believe in infant baptism, for instance. And there are many non-religious ideas to consider as well. The Book of Mormon has clear ideas about ethical ways to act in warfare. Grotius literally wrote the book on that. And when you compare Grotius's ideas and the Book of Mormon ideas on the subject they are very consistent. The Book of Mormon also has clear ideas about the types of governments that are ideal and how those governments should interact with the church. Grotius literally wrote the book on that, too. Actually he wrote a book on that. It was fellow Dutchman Erasmus of Rotterdam who wrote the book on the subject a century earlier. But Grotius was a follower of Erasmus on this subject and the Book of Mormon is very consistent with the Erasmian/Grotian ideal.

As you study the history of the Dutch Republic it becomes obvious that the Nephites face the same internal struggles and have a very similar government. As you study the 30 Years War and the 80 Years War you see obvious parallels with the wars in the Book of Mormon. The battles with the Gadianton Robbers have some parallels in 17th Century Europe, but the most striking parallel in the entire Book of Mormon is actually with the Robber Tacfarinas of ancient Rome. Grotius was a historian well-versed in ancient Roman history and cited this story in his works. Honestly I can't believe the critics didn't jump on this story long ago. It's actually quite amazing and I'm considering writing a paper on it. There's much more but I've gone on too long already.

So the point of this hypothesis is to explain from a scholarly perspective who is likely to have written the Book of Mormon and when based on a convergence of ideas in 17th Century Europe.

[JarMan]

7 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I am asking for evidence of a manuscript written by Grotius and translated by an Englishman. We have eyewitnesses for the existence of the plates and the manner of the production of the text.

Glenn

Yes, we have evidence for the plates. And we have evidence Joseph dictated a text to his scribes. But we don't have evidence that the writing on the plates was in any way related to the text he dictated to his scribes. To me, an unknown source seems at least as plausible as an known source with an unknown relation.

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

Yes, we have evidence for the plates. And we have evidence Joseph dictated a text to his scribes. But we don't have evidence that the writing on the plates was in any way related to the text he dictated to his scribes. To me, an unknown source seems at least as plausible as an known source with an unknown relation.

We also have witnesses for the angel showing the plates also. We have no accounts of any manuscripts. And we have Joseph Smith's story on how the whole thing came about, which was the jump start to the restoration. As a believer in the restoration, I find Joseph's story much more plausible.

Glenn

[MormonMason]

Anachronistic from beginning to end? That is the kind of argument one might expect from decades ago.  From what I've seen the number of so-called anachronisms keeps going down.

Out of curiosity, does Grotius mention the concept of God as gatekeeper? I don't recall seeing that in any of the works of Grotius.  Maybe I just have missed them.  Such a concept doesn't come from the Bible.  On the other hand, I have seen such a concept in the pyramid text of Teti.  It's a very Egyptian concept that shows up in the Book of Mormon.

[Rajah Manchou]

47 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

Out of curiosity, does Grotius mention the concept of God as gatekeeper? I don't recall seeing that in any of the works of Grotius.  Maybe I just have missed them.  Such a concept doesn't come from the Bible.  On the other hand, I have seen such a concept in the pyramid text of Teti.  It's a very Egyptian concept that shows up in the Book of Mormon.

Also possible it came from The Pilgrim's Progress:

"The Pilgrim's Progress Bunyan has Interpreter instruct the damsel Innocent to take Christiana and her children to the Bath of Sanctification, where they were told that they must wash and be clean ... 'they came out of that Bath, not only sweet, and clean; but also much enlivened and strengthened in their Joynts'. This implied reference to baptism appears to be a concession to his strict Baptist critics. But we note that Mercy is admitted to the wicket-gate by Christ its keeper, even though she had received no invitation from the King, but only from Christiana. The keeper of the Gate assures her: 'I pray for all them that believe on me, by what means soever they come unto me' [link]

[Physics Guy]

On 3/29/2018 at 7:07 PM, JarMan said:

Alma 30:9 is not a speech put into the mouth of a protagonist. It is a narrator’s aside to the reader. A 21st Century narrator would not give an aside to the reader to explain something about slavery that was obvious to a 21st Century audience. For example, he wouldn’t say: by the way, slavery is a barbaric institution that civilized nations no longer practice. 

That would be a fair point if the Book of Mormon were a work of non-fictional history, but if the Book of Mormon is fiction then your argument is misplaced, because if we think of the Book of Mormon as a work of fiction, then it's clearly in the genre of "discovered manuscript", like Poe's Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym or Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, or the Blair Witch Project. It's an important part of the story itself that the narrator is supposed to have been a particular real individual who wrote in the past. Winning the reader's sympathy for the narrator is at least as important as winning sympathy for any particular actors in the events portrayed. Sherlock Holmes would never have become so popular if Watson were not so likable, and Conan Doyle made Watson likable by having Watson express narratorial opinions of which Doyle's audience was sure to approve.

So a 21st century author presenting a book that is supposed to have been written by a first-century author would definitely include narratorial asides about the evils of slavery, in order to win sympathy with the narrator-character from the 21st-century audience. Moreover the narrators in the Book of Mormon are the most important characters. They have to be sympathetic because they have to be accepted as speaking for God.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Physics Guy

[Gray]

1 hour ago, MormonMason said:

Anachronistic from beginning to end? That is the kind of argument one might expect from decades ago.  From what I've seen the number of so-called anachronisms keeps going down.

Out of curiosity, does Grotius mention the concept of God as gatekeeper? I don't recall seeing that in any of the works of Grotius.  Maybe I just have missed them.  Such a concept doesn't come from the Bible.  On the other hand, I have seen such a concept in the pyramid text of Teti.  It's a very Egyptian concept that shows up in the Book of Mormon.

The theological/ideological anachronisms are all over the place, but everyone seems to prefer to talk about horses and steel.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Gray

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

That would be a fair point if the Book of Mormon were a work of non-fictional history, but if the Book of Mormon is fiction then your argument is misplaced, because if we think of the Book of Mormon as a work of fiction, then it's clearly in the genre of "discovered manuscript", like Poe's Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym or Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, or the Blair Witch Project. It's an important part of the story itself that the narrator is supposed to have been a particular real individual who wrote in the past. Winning the reader's sympathy for the narrator is at least as important as winning sympathy for any particular actors in the events portrayed. Sherlock Holmes would never have become so popular if Watson were not so likable, and Conan Doyle made Watson likable by having Watson express narratorial opinions of which Doyle's audience was sure to approve.

So a 21st century author presenting a book that is supposed to have been written by a first-century author would definitely include narratorial asides about the evils of slavery, in order to win sympathy with the narrator-character from the 21st-century audience. Moreover the narrators in the Book of Mormon are the most important characters. They have to be sympathetic because they have to be accepted as speaking for God.

The thing we have to realize with the story of Korihor is that religious freedom (in the modern American sense) does not win the day. It wasn't a story designed to make us sympathetic to religious freedom. It was a story designed to describe an appropriate limit to religious freedom. The narrator's explanation that there was religious freedom in the land wasn't a device to gain sympathy for that concept. He was simply doing what a narrator does, which is to give the reader information he thinks the reader doesn't already know. We can gain some insight on the narrator's world by looking at the information he chooses to add for explanatory purposes and the information he leaves out since this helps reveal his assumptions about what the reader knows or believes. Mormon goes out of his way to explain why the Nephites had such liberal laws in a tone that almost begs the reader to please understand there was a noble intent behind them. This tells us he likely felt his readers would naturally be opposed to this level of religious freedom. If you strip your 21st Century assumptions away, in the end the message of the story is clear: we cannot allow atheism to be taught in the land since it will lead to societal disorder. This makes the purpose of the story anachronistic to Joseph's world.

[JarMan]

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

We also have witnesses for the angel showing the plates also. We have no accounts of any manuscripts. And we have Joseph Smith's story on how the whole thing came about, which was the jump start to the restoration. As a believer in the restoration, I find Joseph's story much more plausible.

Glenn

Over time I've become very puzzled by some of the things Joseph and some of his closest associates have said. If I can't fully rely on his explanation for the Book of Abraham or for his translation of the bible it makes it harder for me to rely on his explanation for the Book of Mormon.

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

The theological/ideological anachronisms are all over the place, but everyone seems to prefer to talk about horses and steel.

Yes. Add to that the cultural anachronisms and it becomes clear the Book of Mormon is not describing ancient peoples.

[JarMan]

6 hours ago, MormonMason said:

Anachronistic from beginning to end? That is the kind of argument one might expect from decades ago.  From what I've seen the number of so-called anachronisms keeps going down.

Out of curiosity, does Grotius mention the concept of God as gatekeeper? I don't recall seeing that in any of the works of Grotius.  Maybe I just have missed them.  Such a concept doesn't come from the Bible.  On the other hand, I have seen such a concept in the pyramid text of Teti.  It's a very Egyptian concept that shows up in the Book of Mormon.

The thing with Grotius' work is that there is a ton of it out there. This website has a searchable database of close to 8,000 personal letters he wrote or received as well as thousands of pages of other unpublished works. The problem is that they are written in Latin, Dutch, French, and German with no English translation. And some of his major published works like his annotations on the Old and New Testament also have not been translated into English as far as I can tell. I haven't searched for God as gatekeeper in his ideas yet but that is an interesting idea I will need to follow up on at some point.

[MormonMason]

5 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Also possible it came from The Pilgrim's Progress:

"The Pilgrim's Progress Bunyan has Interpreter instruct the damsel Innocent to take Christiana and her children to the Bath of Sanctification, where they were told that they must wash and be clean ... 'they came out of that Bath, not only sweet, and clean; but also much enlivened and strengthened in their Joynts'. This implied reference to baptism appears to be a concession to his strict Baptist critics. But we note that Mercy is admitted to the wicket-gate by Christ its keeper, even though she had received no invitation from the King, but only from Christiana. The keeper of the Gate assures her: 'I pray for all them that believe on me, by what means soever they come unto me' [link]

You haven't actually read Bunyan, have you? Perhaps you should.  I wouldn't have used that interpretive secondary source like you did.  In the actual text of Bunyan there are multiple gatekeepers (not called such), some identified as "shining ones" and so forth.

[MormonMason]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

The thing with Grotius' work is that there is a ton of it out there. This website has a searchable database of close to 8,000 personal letters he wrote or received as well as thousands of pages of other unpublished works. The problem is that they are written in Latin, Dutch, French, and German with no English translation. And some of his major published works like his annotations on the Old and New Testament also have not been translated into English as far as I can tell. I haven't searched for God as gatekeeper in his ideas yet but that is an interesting idea I will need to follow up on at some point.

In other words, you are proposing a strange hypothesis of Grotius as source without actually being familiar with most of the works of Grotius.  You are relying on potentially faulty English translations, where such exist, and proposing the existence of putative "English translation events" sans evidence, all while ignoring the vast body of his other work.  Got it.  And you expect that Joseph Smith even knew about, much less sought to look up any work of Grotius, using the seer stone so he could plagiarize a manuscript of Grotius for use in the Book of Mormon.  Worse for you, another of your more serious problems is that you are relying on a limited knowledge of the contents of an Old Testament that has huge amounts of missing text and altered material, and then you use that to claim that there are things in the Book of Mormon that are anachronisms.  You have no real way of knowing any of that.  You cannot read Latin, Dutch, French or German, but you want to connect Grotius as the source of the Book of Mormon? Not sure how you are going to do that in any valid way.  You have no real, meaningful contact with the writings of Grotius, and you expect to have Joseph Smith have contact with even a fraction of this material? Either way has some form of the miraculous involved.  And, you also are basing alleged anachronisms on an English text of the Book of Mormon.  We do not have the original plates.  There is no way to check it to determine whether something was a real anachronism or an artifact of translation?

[Rajah Manchou]

4 hours ago, MormonMason said:

You haven't actually read Bunyan, have you? Perhaps you should. I wouldn't have used that interpretive secondary source like you did.  In the actual text of Bunyan there are multiple gatekeepers (not called such), some identified as "shining ones" and so forth.

If the pyramid text of Teti has a single instance of a gatekeeper referring to shining ones, God or Christ, that could be a more likely source than Bunyan. Could you provide a source, primary, secondary or otherwise?
You also haven't provided anything for your claim for 1 Enoch in Helaman.
 

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, MormonMason said:

You have no real, meaningful contact with the writings of Grotius, and you expect to have Joseph Smith have contact with even a fraction of this material?

We do not have the original plates. There is no way to check it to determine whether something was a real anachronism or an artifact of translation?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited April 5, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, JarMan said:

Over time I've become very puzzled by some of the things Joseph and some of his closest associates have said. If I can't fully rely on his explanation for the Book of Abraham or for his translation of the bible it makes it harder for me to rely on his explanation for the Book of Mormon.

I don't fully rely on Joseph's explanation for the Book of Abraham, or the Book of Mormon either. Had to check with the Holy Ghost also. 

As for reservations about both, I am a Heber J. Grant type of believer. The full explanation for both will be revealed eventually and Joseph Smith will look really good while his critics, not so much.

Glenn

[MormonMason]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

If the pyramid text of Teti has a single instance of a gatekeeper referring to shining ones, God or Christ, that could be a more likely source than Bunyan. Could you provide a source, primary, secondary or otherwise?
You also haven't provided anything for your claim for 1 Enoch in Helaman.

I managed to put the translation of the pertinent portion of the Pyramid Text of Teti (d. 2323 BCE) in the margin of my scriptures.  Here is the English translation of the pertinent portion I inserted in said margin:

Quote

Stand at the gates that bar the common people!

The gatekeeper comes out to you,

He grasps your hand, and takes into heaven...

In addition, the Book of Mormon says nothing about "shining ones" at a "wicken gate."  The Book of Mormon, unlike Bunyan, states that the Lord is the keeper of the gate and that he employs no servants there.  In Bunyan, there are plenty of servants of various names who stand at and leading up to the gate.

I also told you exactly why I could not provide specifics as to 1 Enoch.  I do not have access to my notes or the related books at the moment.  There is nothing I can do about that right now.  But I did offer a suggestion as to a source you could check.  You also could check Nibley's collected works for Enoch references.  If I recall correctly, I think he wrote about that, too.

Edited April 5, 2018 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

On ‎04‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 6:40 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

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.

None of the Enochian lore in Freemasonry has any association with the Book of Mormon.  People try to make connections but as son as one looks at the context the connections are shown false.

As to the further information, I already stated the reasons why I cannot provide that right now.  Until those circumstances change, nothing else will change.  But I also did mention a secondary source for you to look into further.  Why not do that instead of waiting for me to have full access to all my books.  You'll be waiting for a long time if you do the latter.

[MormonMason]

On ‎04‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 10:13 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

"Mormon Mason",

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

My personal belief is that the Book of Mormon has as its source what is officially claimed for it.

Edited April 5, 2018 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

Another wrench:

Quote

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
(2 Peter 2:4)

 

[Rajah Manchou]

12 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

The Book of Mormon says nothing about "shining ones" at a "wicken gate."  The Book of Mormon, unlike Bunyan, states that the Lord is the keeper of the gate and that he employs no servants there.  In Bunyan, there are plenty of servants of various names who stand at and leading up to the gate.

The Book of Mormon also says nothing about Teti collecting bones and beer to meet father Geb: 

Oho! Oho! Rise up, O Teti!

Take your head, collect your bones,

Gather your limbs, shake the earth from your flesh!

Take your bread that rots not, your beer that sours not,

Stand at the gates that bar the common people!
The gatekeeper comes out to you, he grasps your hand,
Takes you into heaven, to your father Geb.

How is this reference to a gatekeeper a better example than the references to the gatekeepers in Pilgrim's Progress? More likely we are seeing parallels where there are none, and neither text had any influence on the Book of Mormon.

[Rajah Manchou]

7 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

But I also did mention a secondary source for you to look into further.  Why not do that instead of waiting for me to have full access to all my books.  You'll be waiting for a long time if you do the latter.

I spent far too long searching. Nibley wrote alot. I did find all the material on Enoch in Moses 6-7 but nothing on Helaman. So guess we'll just skip it for now.