Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

[MormonMason]

12 hours ago, Gray said:

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

These have been decreasing in number over time.  However, this is from the perspective of a Bible that is missing a lot of text and which has had substantial changes to some of the text.  This has had the effect of creating apparent anachronisms.  Conversely, the Book of Mormon also is a translation, which increases the number because of the limits of the vocabulary of the translator.  One can see this same sort of thing in various translations of the New Testament and in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and so forth.

As to horses, I do not hold that the horses are what we understood to be horses.  The animals called "horses" in the Book of Mormon are listed as subsistence animals.  That is a no-no under the Law of Moses.  Horses also weren't ridden in the Book of Mormon.  Ever.  We have an analogy in the Greek naming of creatures they saw hanging out in the Nile.  Have you ever seen a "River Horse"? If you've seen a hippopotamus, you have.  The Greek term means "horse of the river."  That's what the Greeks called them.  As you know, they're not horses.  But the Greeks called them that.  Who is to say that the Book of Mormon peoples did not do the very same thing when they came across the creatures they then called "horses."

As to steel, there are many forms of steel.  Any steeled metal also can be called a "steel."  Doesn't have to be iron at all.  In ancient times they did not make steel with steel mills like we do today.  They made pieces individually, with a single furnace run by a single individual.  If the Book of Mormon events occurred primarily in Mesoamerica, steels made with iron would have done very poorly.  Most occurrences of swords in the Book of Mormon, in their later history, definitely are not made of steel or of any other metal.

[MormonMason]

21 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

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.

Ummm,  I never stated that the Pyramid text of Teti influenced the Book of Mormon.  Never.  That is your misinterpretation of what I did state.  I stated that the idea of Gods as gatekeepers is a very Egyptian idea.  And it is.  A number of papyri also show images of gods as gatekeepers.

As to Bunyan, none of his "gatekeepers" (again, never called that in Bunyan) are God or Christ.  And there are more than one and they are servants.  The Book of Mormon claims that the Holy One of Israel employs no servants there.  Very, very different concepts.  But you won't get that if you consult after-the-fact interpretive texts of Bunyan rather than Bunyan himself.  The Book of Mormon did not get the idea from Bunyan.

Edited April 5, 2018 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

17 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

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.

You also could search one of the works of Quinn, too.  He attempts to address Nibley's claim.  Unfortunately, I do not recall in which book that discussion occurs, either.

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, MormonMason said:

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?

Look, I've seen around 5-10 percent of Steph Curry's NBA games. But if he showed up at a church ball game and played in disguise I'd know it was him within a few minutes despite the fact there are hundreds of his games I haven't seen.

36 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

Another wrench:

 

What does the New Testament have to do with Nephi?

[Rajah Manchou]

20 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

As to Bunyan, none of his "gatekeepers" (again, never called that in Bunyan) are God or Christ.  And there are more than one and they are servants.  The Book of Mormon claims that the Holy One of Israel employs no servants there.  Very, very different concepts.  But you won't get that if you consult after-the-fact interpretive texts of Bunyan rather than Bunyan himself.

I looked at both primary and secondary sources. At least one of the gatekeepers is called the "Keeper of the Gate" in The Pilgrim's Progress. From my reading, God, Christ or the Lord is intended to be the Keeper of the Gate. The secondary source I linked to earlier gives the same reading.


A footnote in the text says that over the gate was written "Knock and it shall be opened".

Edited April 5, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Look, I've seen around 5-10 percent of Steph Curry's NBA games. But if he showed up at a church ball game and played in disguise I'd know it was him within a few minutes despite the fact there are hundreds of his games I haven't seen.

 

Could you do the same if all you saw was the movement of the ball and not Curry himself?

There are plenty of people who "recognize" other writers in the BoM.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Calm

[JarMan]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

Could you do the same if all you saw was the movement of the ball and not Curry himself?

There are plenty of people who "recognize" other writers in the BoM.

The point I’m making is that you can get a good idea of somebody’s body of work by only seeing a portion of it. This was in response to Mormon Mason’s claim that I can’t know Grotius if I’ve only seen a portion of his work. I’m not claiming to recognize anything but ideas.  

Edited April 5, 2018 by JarMan

[Gray]

1 hour ago, MormonMason said:

These have been decreasing in number over time.  However, this is from the perspective of a Bible that is missing a lot of text and which has had substantial changes to some of the text.  This has had the effect of creating apparent anachronisms.  Conversely, the Book of Mormon also is a translation, which increases the number because of the limits of the vocabulary of the translator.  One can see this same sort of thing in various translations of the New Testament and in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and so forth.

As to horses, I do not hold that the horses are what we understood to be horses.  The animals called "horses" in the Book of Mormon are listed as subsistence animals.  That is a no-no under the Law of Moses.  Horses also weren't ridden in the Book of Mormon.  Ever.  We have an analogy in the Greek naming of creatures they saw hanging out in the Nile.  Have you ever seen a "River Horse"? If you've seen a hippopotamus, you have.  The Greek term means "horse of the river."  That's what the Greeks called them.  As you know, they're not horses.  But the Greeks called them that.  Who is to say that the Book of Mormon peoples did not do the very same thing when they came across the creatures they then called "horses."

As to steel, there are many forms of steel.  Any steeled metal also can be called a "steel."  Doesn't have to be iron at all.  In ancient times they did not make steel with steel mills like we do today.  They made pieces individually, with a single furnace run by a single individual.  If the Book of Mormon events occurred primarily in Mesoamerica, steels made with iron would have done very poorly.  Most occurrences of swords in the Book of Mormon, in their later history, definitely are not made of steel or of any other metal.

Whether the physical anachronisms are shrinking or growing seems to depend entirely on how you choose to interpret the text.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Gray

[Physics Guy]

13 hours ago, JarMan said:

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. ... [T]he 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.

I really don't see that. The target audience for the Book of Mormon seems to me to be patriotic Americans who are sure their Founding Fathers had their hearts in the right place but who would prefer a fair bit more theocracy. Mormon really seems to me to be giving a divinely approved voice to opinions that a lot of Smith's contemporaries shared.

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

I really don't see that. The target audience for the Book of Mormon seems to me to be patriotic Americans who are sure their Founding Fathers had their hearts in the right place but who would prefer a fair bit more theocracy. Mormon really seems to me to be giving a divinely approved voice to opinions that a lot of Smith's contemporaries shared.

Do you think that most of Joseph's contemporaries secretly believed that it would be better to have a (just) King than a democracy?

Glenn

Edited April 5, 2018 by Glenn101
additional thought

[Physics Guy]

Most of his contemporaries, probably not. It would have been a sensible strategy for a person setting up for a theocrat, though, to try to appeal to the minority who hankered for theocracy.

[MormonMason]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

Whether the physical anachronisms are shrinking or growing seems to depend entirely on how you choose to interpret the text.

In some cases, absolutely yes.  Interpretation in some cases can make a large difference.  So, whose interpretation is correct and why should anyone be forced to accept it? But in other cases further discoveries can lead to the removal of claimed anachronisms.

For example, I used to be concerned about the use of phrases like "and so forth/&c." and "or, in other words" being found in the Book of Mormon.  It bothered me a bit.  For some years that was a fairly major concern to some.  I knew someone who left the Church over those two phrases in the Book of Mormon.  No ancient text would contain such, so there could be no translation thereof.  Or so the argument went.  They were considered anachronisms.  I considered the phrases as such, too, but I also had considered that they might just be artifacts in translation merely as a result of Joseph Smith's own choices in the translation process.  But then I found like phrases in ancient Egyptian texts, and later in a more recent Egyptian-German Lexicon.  No more anachronisms in the phrases.  They were gone just like that!

Adieu has been a concern to many.  Anti-Mormons have objected to its presence in a translation of a text with a BC dating.  On the other hand, I saw it as nothing more than a translation artifact.  That one did not concern me a whole lot, especially since I had seen the same word used in an English translation of Josephus as well as another French word used in an English New Testament translation done by J. B. Philips.  But then I later found an Egyptian word with like meaning in a German-Egyptian Lexicon.  Another proposed anachronism gone.

Some of the loss of anachronisms has additional supporting evidence.  Some, just an alternative interpretation.  Yet, much of what one thinks is interpretation and perception.

[JarMan]

7 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

I really don't see that. The target audience for the Book of Mormon seems to me to be patriotic Americans who are sure their Founding Fathers had their hearts in the right place but who would prefer a fair bit more theocracy. Mormon really seems to me to be giving a divinely approved voice to opinions that a lot of Smith's contemporaries shared.

Now, hold on a minute. Patriotic Americans desired religious freedom and a wall of separation between church and state. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the first part of the First Amendment. This is a foundational concept. Many of those who believed otherwise during the revolution and immediately afterwards fled to Canada. But now we're talking 50 years after the revolution. I highly doubt there were "a lot" of people in Joseph's environment that were pro-state religion and anti-freedom of religion. That's the type of claim that requires a reference so I'm asking you to provide references to support your claim. Keep in mind that to be consistent with the story of Korihor there would need to be people who believed that 1) Religious freedom should not be extended to atheists, 2) A state church is desirable, 3) Ecclesiastical leaders should have the authority to exercise civil power, and 4) atheists were such a menace to society God would rather have them dead then allow them to disrupt a peaceful society.

[MormonMason]

13 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I looked at both primary and secondary sources. At least one of the gatekeepers is called the "Keeper of the Gate" in The Pilgrim's Progress. From my reading, God, Christ or the Lord is intended to be the Keeper of the Gate. The secondary source I linked to earlier gives the same reading.


A footnote in the text says that over the gate was written "Knock and it shall be opened".

Sure, that is one interpretation.  But this gate certainly is not the heavenly gate.  This is only the very beginning of their journey, not the end thereof.  This is only "The First Stage" of the journey in the putative dream of Bunyan.  Again, you need to read Bunyan through and not just accept someone's interpretations.  Incidentally, the copy of the work I just looked at does not have any part of "keeper of the gate" capitalized.  Looks like an interpretation based on typesetting.  That is a pretty shaky standard of interpretation, I might add.

Edited April 5, 2018 by MormonMason

[JarMan]

20 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

In some cases, absolutely yes.  Interpretation in some cases can make a large difference.  So, whose interpretation is correct and why should anyone be forced to accept it? But in other cases further discoveries can lead to the removal of claimed anachronisms.

For example, I used to be concerned about the use of phrases like "and so forth/&c." and "or, in other words" being found in the Book of Mormon.  It bothered me a bit.  For some years that was a fairly major concern to some.  I knew someone who left the Church over those two phrases in the Book of Mormon.  No ancient text would contain such, so there could be no translation thereof.  Or so the argument went.  They were considered anachronisms.  I considered the phrases as such, too, but I also had considered that they might just be artifacts in translation merely as a result of Joseph Smith's own choices in the translation process.  But then I found like phrases in ancient Egyptian texts, and later in a more recent Egyptian-German Lexicon.  No more anachronisms in the phrases.  They were gone just like that!

Adieu has been a concern to many.  Anti-Mormons have objected to its presence in a translation of a text with a BC dating.  On the other hand, I saw it as nothing more than a translation artifact.  That one did not concern me a whole lot, especially since I had seen the same word used in an English translation of Josephus as well as another French word used in an English New Testament translation done by J. B. Philips.  But then I later found an Egyptian word with like meaning in a German-Egyptian Lexicon.  Another proposed anachronism gone.

Some of the loss of anachronisms has additional supporting evidence.  Some, just an alternative interpretation.  Yet, much of what one thinks is interpretation and perception.

You're looking in the wrong place for anachronisms. For me it has nothing to do with archaeology or words like adieu or any other words. The Nephites are an anachronistic people culturally, governmentally and religiously. They simply do not fit the mold of ancient semitic or mesoamerican peoples. This can't be explained away by lost portions of scripture. As a people, the Nephites are consistent with early modern European practices and ideas with some token Law of Moses things thrown in.

[Rajah Manchou]

20 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

Looks like an interpretation based on typesetting.  That is a pretty shaky standard of interpretation, I might add.

You said it best: "so, whose interpretation is correct?"

[MormonMason]

14 hours ago, JarMan said:

Look, I've seen around 5-10 percent of Steph Curry's NBA games. But if he showed up at a church ball game and played in disguise I'd know it was him within a few minutes despite the fact there are hundreds of his games I haven't seen.

 

That is all well and good but what to do with the differing styles seen among several of the writers in the Book of Mormon? Similarity of ideas does not a similarity of style make.  Here is an example of something I picked up from some notes on the Book of Mormon:

Quote

Writing Styles of Four Central Book of Mormon Writers Compared
(Evidence of Multiple Authorship)

Nephi:  He used long, tedious sentences made of several dependent clauses.  In his writings, metaphoric expressions are numerous and original, such as "thunderings of and lightnings of his power."  He also used many personifications such as "they (the other churches) will be drunken with their own blood."  Nephi also used dialogue 2 to 5 times more frequently than did other writers.

Jacob:  He used shorter, clearer sentences with less subordination.  He also used many elliptical expressions.  Apostrophe (speaking to an unseen audience) is virtually absent.  In addition, he used few parallels, and no redundant or excessive repetition other than a characteristic use of subject-participial phrase-subject (repeated).

Mormon:  He writings are replete with infinitives.  He used no elliptical expressions, in total contrast to Jacob's writings.  He had an abundant use of Apostrophe.  Dialogue, in his writings, is entirely absent.  In addition, he exuded little use of the rhetorical question so frequently seen in the writings of Moroni, his son.

Moroni:  His use of participial phrases were half as numerous as in other writings.  He had a habit of using antithetical parallelisms (see Mormon 8:37), and used the Apostrophe with abundance.  Moroni's writings were also characterized by an abundant amount of reasoning and use of the rhetorical question.

Sorry that I do not recall the original source of this above claim but it seems valid to me based on cursory glances at what the person spoke of concerning the text.  Here is another note in my copy of the Book of Mormon (also a source no longer recalled by me):

Quote

 

Vocabulary differences between writers:  Nephi, in First and Second Nephi, used 578 words not used by any other writer in the Book of Mormon.  Alma used 683 words not duplicated by any other Book of Mormon writer.  Each of the eleven Book of Mormon writers used words not used by any of the others.

 

There really are distinctive differences in style between the writers of the Book of Mormon, which would not be the case if Grotius is the source of the Book of Mormon, regardless of whether via manuscript (an impossibility, based on unanimous eyewitness testimony) or via the seer stone.  I've noticed the differences.  Others have as well.  You are looking at individual phrases and unreliable ngrams.  You are not looking at the overarching stylistic differences between Grotius and the authors of the Book of Mormon, and between the individual authors of the texts of the Book of Mormon.  These differences are substantial.

Quote

What does the New Testament have to do with Nephi?

For one thing, it predates Grotius.  If you insist that Grotius is the source of the Book of Mormon and some of its ideas, then you have to prove that Grotius, and not another earlier, more available, source accessible to Joseph Smith, was the source for particular ideas.  Anything predating Grotius that shares similarity of phrasing and ideas is a wrench in the machinery of your hypothesis.

For another thing, many ideas in the New Testament have older interpretations underlying them from the Targums of the Old Testament, and other very old sources and ideas shared in common by the New Testament, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, and the Talmudic and Midrashic sources.

Edited April 5, 2018 by MormonMason

[Rajah Manchou]

19 minutes ago, JarMan said:

As a people, the Nephites are consistent with early modern European practices and ideas with some token Law of Moses things thrown in.

@hagoth7, is that you? 
: )

[MormonMason]

19 minutes ago, JarMan said:

You're looking in the wrong place for anachronisms. For me it has nothing to do with archaeology or words like adieu or any other words. The Nephites are an anachronistic people culturally, governmentally and religiously. They simply do not fit the mold of ancient semitic or mesoamerican peoples. This can't be explained away by lost portions of scripture. As a people, the Nephites are consistent with early modern European practices and ideas with some token Law of Moses things thrown in.

The Nephites and Lamanites aren't all that consistent with European practices.  There are many elements that make more sense in a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon.  They do fit a blending of Semitic and Mesoamerican peoples.  This is particularly the case for the description of the organization of kings among the Lamanites.  That matches up quite nicely and closely with what is seen among the Maya and other connected cultures in Mesoamerica.  Wars of extermination.  Sacrifice of blood.  A whole lot more.  As I mentioned in another post, you are focusing on ngrams and individual phrases.  You are looking so closely at trees that you cannot see the forest.

Wording also is the root of anachronism, contrary to what you stated above.  Your very approach is based upon such!  And lost scripture and altered texts really can make a difference in what we think about what the ancients did and thought.  We only have a fraction of what was known to the ancient world.  We only know a fraction of the practices and thoughts of the same.  As new texts are found, there can be seen a growing compatibility and connection to the ancient world.

[MormonMason]

22 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

You said it best: "so, whose interpretation is correct?"

So, which one did Joseph Smith read and when? Joseph Smith's own mother said that, unlike her other children, Joseph was not much of a reader.

Edited April 5, 2018 by MormonMason

[Rajah Manchou]

53 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

So, which one did Joseph Smith read and when? Joseph Smith's own mother said that, unlike her other children, Joseph was not much of a reader.

I doubt he was much of a reader in his youth. Another reason I don't believe Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon. 

[Rajah Manchou]

15 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

As new texts are found, there can be seen a growing compatibility and connection to the ancient world.

The third text will sort everything out:

"Lost books are among the treasures yet to come forth. Over twenty of these are mentioned in the existing scriptures. Perhaps most startling and voluminous will be the records of the lost tribes of Israel. We would not even know of the impending third witness for Christ except through the precious Book of Mormon, the second witness for Christ! This third set of sacred records will thus complete a triad of truth. Then, just as the Perfect Shepherd has said, “My word also shall be gathered in one”. There will be “one fold and one shepherd” in a welding together of all the Christian dispensations of human history." - Neal A Maxwell

"As if all this were not enough, the splendid Book of Mormon advises that a third scriptural witness is yet to come from the lost tribes. Its coming is likely to be even more dramatic than the coming forth of the second testament. Those who doubt or disdain the second testament of Christ will not accept the third either. But believers will then possess a triumphant triad of truth. Were it not for the Book of Mormon, we would not even know about the third set of records! We do not know when and how this will occur, but we are safe in assuming that the third book will have the same fundamental focus as the Book of Mormon: “that . . . their seed [too] . . . may be brought to a knowledge of me, their Redeemer” . If there is a title page in that third set of sacred records, it is not likely to differ in purpose from the title page in the Book of Mormon, except for its focus on still other peoples who likewise received a personal visit from the resurrected Jesus." - Neal A Maxwell

[MormonMason]

9 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The third text will sort everything out:

"Lost books are among the treasures yet to come forth. Over twenty of these are mentioned in the existing scriptures. Perhaps most startling and voluminous will be the records of the lost tribes of Israel. We would not even know of the impending third witness for Christ except through the precious Book of Mormon, the second witness for Christ! This third set of sacred records will thus complete a triad of truth. Then, just as the Perfect Shepherd has said, “My word also shall be gathered in one”. There will be “one fold and one shepherd” in a welding together of all the Christian dispensations of human history." - Neal A Maxwell

"As if all this were not enough, the splendid Book of Mormon advises that a third scriptural witness is yet to come from the lost tribes. Its coming is likely to be even more dramatic than the coming forth of the second testament. Those who doubt or disdain the second testament of Christ will not accept the third either. But believers will then possess a triumphant triad of truth. Were it not for the Book of Mormon, we would not even know about the third set of records! We do not know when and how this will occur, but we are safe in assuming that the third book will have the same fundamental focus as the Book of Mormon: “that . . . their seed [too] . . . may be brought to a knowledge of me, their Redeemer” . If there is a title page in that third set of sacred records, it is not likely to differ in purpose from the title page in the Book of Mormon, except for its focus on still other peoples who likewise received a personal visit from the resurrected Jesus." - Neal A Maxwell

Third text? You only quote two.  Or are you referring to the third scriptural text that will one day be found and translated?

But what I stated is completely apart from this third witness to come.  Sure, it will answer many questions.  But, what I refer to are texts that are recovered in archaeological finds and so forth.  With each text found one or more anachronisms are weakened or go away entirely.

[MormonMason]

20 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I doubt he was much of a reader in his youth. Another reason I don't believe Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon. 

He wasn't.  He wasn't much of a reader later on in life, either.  He had to force himself to do so out of necessity.  But I do agree with you in not believing that Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon.  But I can also say with like certitude of belief that Grotius also was not the author of the Book of Mormon.  The Book of Mormon does not match the overall style of Grotius.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, MormonMason said:

Wording also is the root of anachronism, contrary to what you stated above.  Your very approach is based upon such!

The frustrating thing about this discussion is that you keep mis-characterizing my position and this is at least the fourth time you've done it. I don't know if this is due to a lack of careful reading or if you are purposefully setting up straw men. But it's making me grumpy. My approach is not based on ngrams. Not in the least bit. 

1 hour ago, MormonMason said:

That is all well and good but what to do with the differing styles seen among several of the writers in the Book of Mormon? Similarity of ideas does not a similarity of style make.  Here is an example of something I picked up from some notes on the Book of Mormon:

Sorry that I do not recall the original source of this above claim but it seems valid to me based on cursory glances at what the person spoke of concerning the text.  Here is another note in my copy of the Book of Mormon (also a source no longer recalled by me):

There really are distinctive differences in style between the writers of the Book of Mormon, which would not be the case if Grotius is the source of the Book of Mormon, regardless of whether via manuscript (an impossibility, based on unanimous eyewitness testimony) or via the seer stone.  I've noticed the differences.  Others have as well.  You are looking at individual phrases and unreliable ngrams.  You are not looking at the overarching stylistic differences between Grotius and the authors of the Book of Mormon, and between the individual authors of the texts of the Book of Mormon.  These differences are substantial.

You really need to get caught up on the latest scholarship. It's like I've time warped to this board about five or ten years in the past. There was a recent thread discussing this issue and I think it's fair to say you are over-playing your hand, here.

1 hour ago, MormonMason said:

For one thing, it predates Grotius.  If you insist that Grotius is the source of the Book of Mormon and some of its ideas, then you have to prove that Grotius, and not another earlier, more available, source accessible to Joseph Smith, was the source for particular ideas.  Anything predating Grotius that shares similarity of phrasing and ideas is a wrench in the machinery of your hypothesis.

This is simply not true. The Book of Mormon is clearly based on the 1611 KJB. So anyone with similar ideas before then cannot be a candidate for authorship.

1 hour ago, MormonMason said:

For another thing, many ideas in the New Testament have older interpretations underlying them from the Targums of the Old Testament, and other very old sources and ideas shared in common by the New Testament, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, and the Talmudic and Midrashic sources.

It's one thing to speculate that earlier interpretations existed. It's another thing to show that they actually did. So far all you have done is speculate.

1 hour ago, MormonMason said:

The Nephites and Lamanites aren't all that consistent with European practices.  There are many elements that make more sense in a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon.  They do fit a blending of Semitic and Mesoamerican peoples.  This is particularly the case for the description of the organization of kings among the Lamanites.  That matches up quite nicely and closely with what is seen among the Maya and other connected cultures in Mesoamerica.  Wars of extermination.  Sacrifice of blood.  A whole lot more.

I've claimed the Book of Mormon is consistent with early modern European ideas. You haven't been able to show where it is not. But it's easy to show plenty of things in the Book of Mormon where there is no known connection to the ancient peoples it is supposed to represent. For instance: anti-slavery, ethical warfare, burning of heretics, republican government, freedom of religion (though not in the modern sense), atheism, pacifism and the vast amount of religious ideas from both the New and Old Testament that weren't available pre-600 BC.

1 hour ago, MormonMason said:

 As I mentioned in another post, you are focusing on ngrams and individual phrases.  You are looking so closely at trees that you cannot see the forest.

Wording also is the root of anachronism, contrary to what you stated above.  Your very approach is based upon such! 

Quit saying this. You are making me believe you are not actually reading what I've written.

1 hour ago, MormonMason said:

And lost scripture and altered texts really can make a difference in what we think about what the ancients did and thought.  We only have a fraction of what was known to the ancient world.  We only know a fraction of the practices and thoughts of the same.  As new texts are found, there can be seen a growing compatibility and connection to the ancient world.

More speculation. You pretend to want to discuss "evidence" but you don't provide any. You simply speculate that it could exist. If you want to have a faith-based discussion about the spiritual value of the Book of Mormon then speculation is fun and worthwhile. But since you insist on talking about evidence let's hear some evidence.