Book of Mormon Criticism of Calvin

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Now I'm going to return the favor and read your mind here. I think you see me as a critic whose purpose in doing this exercise is to "prove" the non-historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Most of the things I am critical of in the use of parallels are from believers. Your point of view is irrelevant to me in this case, and I noted this.

6 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I've solicited input on this board probably a dozen times for things within the Book of Mormon that would show it wasn't produced in about 1640. I did that again earlier in this thread and I'll do it again now. I don't see Dan Vogel doing the same for his hypothesis. I certainly don't see apologists doing that. In fact I don't see any other Book of Mormon enthusiast actively trying to do it. Are you?

I have done some work on this. The argument doesn't particularly interest me. Perhaps you could tell me what data would look like that would falsify your argument?

My interests at this point are varied. I am interested in reading the text for its philosophical and doctrinal perspectives. I am perfectly comfortable with the production of the text of the Book of Mormon in 1829 (an entirely independent question from the issue of whether or not it is based on a much older text from someplace else). I have yet to see any evidence that could convince me that it wasn't produced in 1829 (and this is, of course, when it was claimed to have been produced). I haven't yet seen an example of EModE in the text that I can't find in literature contemporary too or dated after the Book of Mormon (I don't see English as having strict demarcations of the sort that would make this valuable - language only offers us an earliest possible date, not a latest possible date). Whatever the origins, however, the language is clearly archaic in places, and this fits a specific rhetorical modeling of the text as a communicative act. I think that the work of Carmack and Skousen is flawed, and offers no probative value in the discussion.

At some point, you are going to have to deal with the problem of contested interpretations. You are going to have make a formal statement suggesting how you interpret and where you place the greatest value. It seems to me that you want to turn Abinadi into Servetus (at least allegorically) when the text itself wants to directly compare Abinadi with Moses. Your theory cannot simply say: here are the parallels. You have to have a good description of how the rhetoric is actually working - how recognizing the shift from Abinadi and Noah to Servetus and Calvin is meant to change our understanding of the text. This is the sort of argument I have engaged in when I have published on this sort of issue for the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon is a text. It still works by the same rules as any other text. If I were to offer you some advice, it would be to look for a solid methodological framework used by others to make this same kind of argument. Take it and then apply it to this particular case. This will help you uncover the strengths and the weaknesses of your argument. These kinds of arguments are not very intuitive because we have a very poor natural understanding of how to estimate the likelihood of coincidences. And we have a hard time looking outside of the connections that we have (correctly or incorrectly) intuited.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

So now I have been continuing my work trying to test this hypothesis. A major approach to this has been trying to falsify it. I've solicited input on this board probably a dozen times for things within the Book of Mormon that would show it wasn't produced in about 1640. I did that again earlier in this thread and I'll do it again now. I don't see Dan Vogel doing the same for his hypothesis. I certainly don't see apologists doing that. In fact I don't see any other Book of Mormon enthusiast actively trying to do it. Are you?

The question for me here, is even if you are right, what does that have to do with the value of the beliefs the book has promulgated?

It has restored belief in theosis, and the need for the emulation of Christ as nothing else has done in the Christian contemporary world, certainly not Protestantism.  Its emphasis on the nuclear family, and, pardon the expression "parallels" (and admitted differences) with the rise of humanism, cannot be found anywhere else. 

Probably the biggest problem we have imo IS that whenever or by whom it was written, another belief is that is written "for the latter days" which to me implies a God who can predict the intellectual climate of a time in the future when it can be seen as "true" for its content and parables and in short perhaps a flowering of a post-post-modernism which is familiar with radical, relational empiricism, and radical theology, its corollary.

We are not there yet, but the decline we see in the church in this contemporary world, I BELIEVE is the "final rise cycle" for those who see it as "true" because they naturally think as a postmodern and those who do not.

You cannot accept this church rationally and accept Cartesian realism and the correspondence theory of alleged "truth". Period.

Yes you can have a testimony and THAT is true, but is not Cartesian realism.

This whole shakeout started in the Romantic period, around 200 years ago when-- guess what happened-- some kid named Joseph said he had a vision.

He nailed it. 

The vision IS for the LATER days, but how much later?

We're just getting there.

Getting rid of this abominable word "Mormonism" is the best, most visible change with which to push ahead, but we need more changes in the minds of members too.

Stop worrying about taking scripture literally, and see it for the wobbly Liahona, penned by very inspired HUMANS under the influence of God, that it is.

IN MY OPINION.

 

[manol]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The question for me here, is even if you are right, what does that have to do with the value of the beliefs the book has promulgated?

It has restored belief in theosis, and the need for the emulation of Christ as nothing else has done in the Christian contemporary world, certainly not Protestantism.  Its emphasis on the nuclear family, and, pardon the expression "parallels" (and admitted differences) with the rise of humanism, cannot be found anywhere else. 

Probably the biggest problem we have imo IS that whenever or by whom it was written, another belief is that is written "for the latter days" which to me implies a God who can predict the intellectual climate of a time in the future when it can be seen as "true" for its content and parables and in short perhaps a flowering of a post-post-modernism which is familiar with radical, relational empiricism, and radical theology, its corollary.

We are not there yet, but the decline we see in the church in this contemporary world, I BELIEVE is the "final rise cycle" for those who see it as "true" because they naturally think as a postmodern and those who do not.

You cannot accept this church rationally and accept Cartesian realism and the correspondence theory of alleged "truth". Period.

Yes you can have a testimony and THAT is true, but is not Cartesian realism.

This whole shakeout started in the Romantic period, around 200 years ago when-- guess what happened-- some kid named Joseph said he had a vision.

He nailed it. 

The vision IS for the LATER days, but how much later?

We're just getting there.

Getting rid of this abominable word "Mormonism" is the best, most visible change with which to push ahead, but we need more changes in the minds of members too.

Stop worrying about taking scripture literally, and see it for the wobbly Liahona, penned by very inspired HUMANS under the influence of God, that it is.

IN MY OPINION.

 

AGREED!!

It's the content, not the wrapper. 

As an ex-member I can find plenty of fault with the wrapper, and sometimes even with that kid who delivered the package, but dangit there's too much good content for me to dismiss the whole thing. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by manol

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

I have limited time at the moment, but I want to partially respond to @Benjamin McGuire regarding purpose and methodology. I think you are making assumptions about what I'm doing here based on your experience, which is completely understandable. Now I'm going to return the favor and read your mind here. I think you see me as a critic whose purpose in doing this exercise is to "prove" the non-historicity of the Book of Mormon. You think I've looked at a historical event that had some superficial similarities with a story in the Book of Mormon and then mined the information to pick out some similarities that I could package together in a way that made two stories look the same. All the while I've been selective in describing the parallels while ignoring the differences. I haven't been completely sincere in the way I've told the stories, but twisted both of them just enough to make key facts line up. I'm so dead set on "disproving" the Book of Mormon as scripture that I have a biased approach that feeds on confirmation bias.

I get that you've seen that approach before so you're naturally weary about what I'm saying. Give me an honest chance here to let me very briefly (I can give more detail when I have time) disabuse you of those ideas that I magically plucked out of your mind. First off, this project started three to four years ago when I was an active member who believed the Book of Mormon to be "true." I had the view that as Joseph "translated" the plates, somehow the stories mingled with things in his mind and we ended up with historical events combined with JS's milieu. In other words, I had a pretty standard view found among various scholars including people on this board. I was very impressed by the work of Skousen and Carmack and decided to test whether we could see signs of an early modern milieu in the Book of Mormon. Maybe there was an additional translation or production event involving an early modern "prophet" that left pieces of his mind and world in the text.

Well, I found a lot of markers in the BOM that looked a lot like early modern Europe. For a year or more I kept looking while trying to develop a model of a "true" BOM that involved some sort of early modern intervention in the production of the text. Eventually I abandoned my religious beliefs for a variety of reasons, but I kept my project going. I developed a hypothesis that the BOM was produced between about 1635 and 1645 based on several markers in the text that I could tie to that time. So now I have been continuing my work trying to test this hypothesis. A major approach to this has been trying to falsify it. I've solicited input on this board probably a dozen times for things within the Book of Mormon that would show it wasn't produced in about 1640. I did that again earlier in this thread and I'll do it again now. I don't see Dan Vogel doing the same for his hypothesis. I certainly don't see apologists doing that. In fact I don't see any other Book of Mormon enthusiast actively trying to do it. Are you?

Since my interest and pursuance of this project has spanned a period of belief and non-belief, I can show that I'm not motivated here by either belief or non-belief. I am not trying to "disprove" the Book of Mormon or its divine provenance or Mormonism in general or religion. I'm simply pursuing an academic interest. If I have any audience in mind, it's really those who agree with Vogel's view. Eventually I would like to get this out to a wider community of historical scholars who are trained in early modern history. So that's a high level view of what I'm trying to do.

Very clearly Romanticism.

Read Everyman's Encyclopedia's infallible proof   :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

At some point, you are going to have to deal with the problem of contested interpretations. You are going to have make a formal statement suggesting how you interpret and where you place the greatest value. It seems to me that you want to turn Abinadi into Servetus (at least allegorically) when the text itself wants to directly compare Abinadi with Moses. Your theory cannot simply say: here are the parallels. You have to have a good description of how the rhetoric is actually working - how recognizing the shift from Abinadi and Noah to Servetus and Calvin is meant to change our understanding of the text. This is the sort of argument I have engaged in when I have published on this sort of issue for the Book of Mormon.

I am actually really glad you brought this up because it gives me a chance to explain how this fits into my bigger hypothesis and why this story should be read the way I am suggesting. I mentioned I had narrowed down the time to about 1635 - 1645, but I've also narrowed down the list of potential authors to 1 man: Hugo Grotius. (Now that I've mentioned his name, a certain regular on this board is going to magically appear and post snide remarks and cruel memes that damage my soul.😓)

Grotius had a major axe to grind with Calvinism. There was a major dispute in the Netherlands in the early 1600's between the Calvinists and the Arminians. It was eventually "settled" at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), which embraced Calvinism. Some Dutch government officials were caught up in the controvery and Johan van Oldenbarnavelt was beheaded. Grotius, who was sort of a state attorney/historian/advisor, was imprisoned for life. (Spoiler alert: he escaped but lived the rest of his life in exile.)

Grotius wrote books on a wide range of subjects--most notably warfare, religion and the bible, and government. He wrote histories, short religious plays (one which influenced , and poetry. He even wrote about the origins of the people in America. My hypothesis is that he wrote the Book of Mormon as sort of a founding myth. It wasn't meant to be a "true" story, but it was meant to show truth and a moral order as he understood it. The best comparison I can think of is Tolkien, who also wrote a sort of founding myth incorporating ideas from his life's work, religion, and life experience.

I've already explained two layers the the story which fit within this paradigm. One layer is that he is trying to show good kingship through contrast--three "good" kings vs. three "bad" kings. The other layer is that he is showing the brutality of executing heretics, but specifically tieing it to Calvin who Grotius disliked. (They weren't contemporaries, but Grotius didn't have many positive things to say about him.) There could be other layers to this story, as well, some of which you've suggested. These things don't have to be mutually exclusive.

I've mentioned an "Alma" that comes out of this story as well. This is a man named Sebastian Castellio. In the aftermath of Servetus' execution, Castellio--a former Calvin colleague--was very critical of Calvin's actions and they feuded quite publicly. Castellio defended Servetus and shared some of his less orthodox views. Many of Castellio's writings were embraced by what would become the Socinians and Arminians, including Hugo Grotius. He was sort of a proto-Socinian or proto-Arminian.

The point is that I'm not just out parallel hunting in a vaccuum. I'm developing an entire, cohesive narrative that helps explain why the Book of Mormon says what it says. So far, we are only discussing one event, but there is a lot more. Check out the other videos I've posted if you're interested in some of the other things I've come up with.

At some point we need to talk about literary comparison and methods. You claim I am focusing on parallels and ignoring differences. This is kind of a head-I win-tails-you lose approach. Because the more parallels I point out, the more you claim parallelomania. Yet any differences that exist I am simply ignoring and, therefore, my case is weaker. In short, both parallels and non-parallels hurt my case. Instead of continuing with that approach, we need to talk in a general sense about what type of parallels matter or don't and what type of differences matter or don't in literary comparison. We need to look at how others have approached this. We can then apply a general methodology to my approach and see how it holds up.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The question for me here, is even if you are right, what does that have to do with the value of the beliefs the book has promulgated?

It has restored belief in theosis, and the need for the emulation of Christ as nothing else has done in the Christian contemporary world, certainly not Protestantism.  Its emphasis on the nuclear family, and, pardon the expression "parallels" (and admitted differences) with the rise of humanism, cannot be found anywhere else. 

Probably the biggest problem we have imo IS that whenever or by whom it was written, another belief is that is written "for the latter days" which to me implies a God who can predict the intellectual climate of a time in the future when it can be seen as "true" for its content and parables and in short perhaps a flowering of a post-post-modernism which is familiar with radical, relational empiricism, and radical theology, its corollary.

We are not there yet, but the decline we see in the church in this contemporary world, I BELIEVE is the "final rise cycle" for those who see it as "true" because they naturally think as a postmodern and those who do not.

You cannot accept this church rationally and accept Cartesian realism and the correspondence theory of alleged "truth". Period.

Yes you can have a testimony and THAT is true, but is not Cartesian realism.

This whole shakeout started in the Romantic period, around 200 years ago when-- guess what happened-- some kid named Joseph said he had a vision.

He nailed it. 

The vision IS for the LATER days, but how much later?

We're just getting there.

Getting rid of this abominable word "Mormonism" is the best, most visible change with which to push ahead, but we need more changes in the minds of members too.

Stop worrying about taking scripture literally, and see it for the wobbly Liahona, penned by very inspired HUMANS under the influence of God, that it is.

IN MY OPINION.

 

I probably find value in the text in a different way than you do. I find value in the Book of Mormon's views and insights into human nature, governments, religions, warfare, ethics, its approach to the bible, ancient history, etc. I'm guessing you're seeing value in different things.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, JarMan said:

At some point we need to talk about literary comparison and methods.

Please do so now…because honestly for every parallel you are bringing up I see contradictions, so until you explain how you are doing more than just finding what you want to find in the text, why your comparison works better (and adding number of similarities doesn’t really matter because you need to be able to judge the value of those similarities in some fashion besides ‘it looks an uncommon variable to me’) I don’t see much value for anyone else besides yourself in your work.

You have not mention anything in your journey that tells me you know what you are doing.  That doesn’t mean you don’t know, but it would be so much more helpful seeing you have an organized system you were taught or if you developed by yourself, you have refined by using/testing it on known examples, so I can follow the logic of how you test your ideas.

Seems to me you would want the how of your work out there first to be discussed and tested because if there are improvements to your method that can be made, doing this as early as possible could save you tons of time in developing your theory as you will have to go back and redo all your work, testing to make sure it still holds every time you upgrade your method.  That is a lot of repetition that isn’t necessary if you start with a great, proven method.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 1/16/2023 at 3:09 AM, JarMan said:

The Book of Mormon isn't shy about criticizing Calvinism. But it takes this a step further and blasts Calvin, himself, by representing him allegorically as King Noah. Meanwhile, Abinadi is  used allegorically to represent a real-life martyr Calvin burned at the stake. I'm creating a series of videos to explore this topic. Here is the first one.

 

 

I am not much of a believer these days but if the God of Calvinism is God then God is truly a monster.

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

Because the more parallels I point out, the more you claim parallelomania

Do you remember when I said it wasn't intuitive? It's been recognized in the literature for close to a century now - presenting more parallels doesn't make your argument any stronger.

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. I think, based on what you have said here, that you are way off in left field. Good luck. I'll bow out at this point ...

[JarMan]

16 hours ago, Nevo said:

To be honest, I thought some of your historical claims in the first video were pretty questionable. E.g., "Calvin developed an intense personal hatred for [Servetus] . . . and vowed to kill him if he ever came to Geneva. . . . Calvin plotted his death . . . made good on his promise and burned Servetus at the stake."

First off, thank you for engaging in reasonable discourse. Direct and specific questions or challenges are appreciated, as I can directly answer them.

To answer these questions, I'll refer you to an 1848 biography critical of Calvin entitled "The Life of Michael Servetus: The Spanish Physician, Who, for the Alleged Crime of Heresy, was Entrapped, Imprisoned, and Burned by John Calvin the Reformer, in the City of Geneva, October 27, 1553". Here's a snippet that addresses each of the points you brought up:

Quote

Calvin's rage against Servetus for presuming to question his infallibility, and condemn as erroneous any of the favourite dogmas of his book, was not to be suppressed. Whatever resentment he felt - whatever desire of vengeance he cherished, he was too magnanimous to conceal. He was no hypocrite, but expressed openly and boldly both what he thought of Servetus, and how he would handle him if ever he should come within his reach, persuading himself, perhaps, that he would do not only a justifiable, but a meritorious act if he should accomplish his destruction. Bolsec affirms that in the year 1546 Calvin wrote to Peter Viret, that if Servetus should go to Geneva, he would never suffer him to depart alive; and we learn from the same authority, that, not satisfied with giving such utterance to his murderous intentions, he had the name of Servetus reported as a heretic to Cardinal Turnoniu , at that time acting in an official capacity in France, well knowing what must be his fate, should he be appre- hended as a heretic under papal authority. The cardinal was amused by this proceeding, and, bursting into a laugh, exclaimed, here is one heretic accusing another of heresy. * That Calvin's threats that he would take the life of Servetus were not idle words, uttered in a moment of excited passion is farther apparent from an original letter of his to Farrel, written in 1546, in which he says: " Servetus has lately written to me, and sent me, at the same time, a large book stuffed with idle fancies, and full of arrogance. He says I shall find in it admirable things, and such as have hitherto been unheard of. He offers to come hither, if I like it, but I will not engage my word; for if he come, and any regard be had to my authority, he shall never escape with his life. ” "D'Artigny , who took his materials for the life of Servetus from the undoubted archives of the Archbishop of Vienne, affirms this. Bolsec and Grotius both saw the original letter . 

From the last sentence we see that Grotius knew that Calvin wanted to kill Servetus.

Another snippet from the same biography:

Quote

The finishing stroke to this picture of Calvin may be found in a letter written with his own hand, which is still preserved in the castle of Bastie - Roland, near Montelimar: it is directed to the Marquis de Poet, high chamberlain to the king of Navarre, and dated Sept. 30 , 1561. 66 Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those zealous scoundrels who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard." 

Hmmm. . . this sounds pretty familiar:

Quote

28 I command you to bring Abinadi hither, that I may slay him, for he has said these things that he might stir up my people to anger one with another, and to raise contentions among my people; therefore I will slay him.

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by JarMan

[JarMan]

16 hours ago, Nevo said:

Any particular works, biographies, or commentary you recommend? I don't disagree that Servetus taught a form of modalism, but I'd prefer to see actual quotes for the specifics. So far you haven't provided any. A close comparison of Servetus's and Abinadi's teachings would be helpful. You'll forgive me if I don't simply take your word for it that they are "perfectly consistent."

This page includes Servetus' first two books, which are preceded by some pretty good commentary. And this 1910 biography has a good discussion about his theology. Here are a few relevant excerpts:

Quote

This doctrine of Christ as the one and only God rings as clear in the first work of the Spaniard as in his last. He was a progressive thinker, and many of his conceptions underwent change and development from time to time, as my be seen from his successive works and letters, but his doctrine concerning Christ remains the same throughout all his writings.

The image of Christ stood out to Servetus in every word, nay, every letter of the Scriptures, as also in all things great and small the the created Universe. "Nay," he exclaims, "the very stones cry out unto me: 'There is One God and One Lord, Jesus the Christ.'" "For Him I speak, He alone defends me. This only Master I love. His word ever pierce my bowels. . . In Christ alone God subsists and is seen; there is no other face or person or hypostasis of God except Christ alone."

Quote

The Divine Logos took the place of the paternal seed, uniting itself livingly with the maternal blood in the  embryo," 104 "mingling itself with the blood of the virgin, and thus transforming the human matter into God." 105 Thus, "by the Incarnation, God and man were henceforth One, in one flesh." 106 "The man Christ was so penetrated by the Deity that He became God in his flesh and blood, in his soul, body and spirit. He was such while in the embryo, and continued to bear the substantial form of God even when in the grave. He himself is the Word and Wisdom of God, and this very light of the face of Christ is to us the intellectual light and the idea of all things. He is the speech of God visible and audible at once to the sense and to the understanding." 107 As, therefore, the Father is true God, so hath He given His true Godhead to His only Son in a unique manner, and has caused the Son to be true God." 108 "When God breathed into Christ His own soul, then at the same time He breathed into Him the whole fulness of God without measure." 109 "Christ, therefore, is not only consubstantial with the Father, but He alone is the whole substance of God." 110 Christ is God by natural birth, naturally born of the substance of God. The whole Deity of the Father, the worship of God, and the aspect of God, exist in Christ, the true God." 111 "The soul of Christ is God; the body of Christ is God; the spirit of Christ is God; and therefore the whole of Christ is God." 112

Abinadi's teachings:

Quote

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the  Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

Quote

15 Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.

Quote

27 And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth

Both men believe strictly in one God. There's no trinity from either man. The Father and Christ are not two distinct beings as in the traditional LDS system. When it comes to God, for both men there is only Christ. He existed on earth as a man, but previously he existed as the Father of all things from the beginning. The Father came down from heaven and, taking human form, became the Son. The Father and Son are the same God in different forms or modes.

One additional note: Servetus was was very firm in his idea that the Father was eternal, but not the Son. The Son only existed in Christ while he was on the earth. This was part of his alleged heresy since it contradicted the creedal idea that the Son was co-eternal with the Father. But neither "Eternal Father" nor "Eternal Son" occur anywhere in the bible. Both ideas are anachronistic to the Book of Mormon. Interestingly, Abinadi mentions the "Eternal Father" here twice, but not the Eternal Son, which is another data point showing the similarities between the Abinadi and Servetus regarding the trinity.

Edited January 20, 2023 by JarMan

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

I probably find value in the text in a different way than you do. I find value in the Book of Mormon's views and insights into human nature, governments, religions, warfare, ethics, its approach to the bible, ancient history, etc. I'm guessing you're seeing value in different things.

No, all of that as well.

Put together the two and several million other views, and golly, you've got something.

THIS is Relational / Radical/Empiricalism; including as many relations as one practically can in evaluating what a thing "is".  New data is always emerging

It becomes "eternal progression" seen as science.

Edited January 20, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Grug the Neanderthal]

17 hours ago, JarMan said:

I developed a hypothesis that the BOM was produced between about 1635 and 1645 based on several markers in the text that I could tie to that time. So now I have been continuing my work trying to test this hypothesis. A major approach to this has been trying to falsify it. I've solicited input on this board probably a dozen times for things within the Book of Mormon that would show it wasn't produced in about 1640. I did that again earlier in this thread and I'll do it again now.

1. Have you compared the grammar and writing style in the original 1830 Book of Mormon to the grammar and writing style of your proposed 1640 European author or standard writing practices of the time?

2. What about the Book of Mormon's record of Nephi's vision of the American Revolution (and possibly the Latin American revolutions) where the American colonists defeated their mother nation? That wouldn't happen for over 140 years after your proposed writing. Hard to imagine some random European predicting that one. 

 

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

1. Have you compared the grammar and writing style in the original 1830 Book of Mormon to the grammar and writing style of your proposed 1640 European author or standard writing practices of the time?

2. What about the Book of Mormon's record of Nephi's vision of the American Revolution (and possibly the Latin American revolutions) where the American colonists defeated their mother nation? That wouldn't happen for over 140 years after your proposed writing. Hard to imagine some random European predicting that one. 

 

Just fyi this IS an already existing theory put forth by some highly regarded scholars 

Google "EModE Book of Mormon".

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

22 hours ago, JarMan said:

I am actually really glad you brought this up because it gives me a chance to explain how this fits into my bigger hypothesis and why this story should be read the way I am suggesting. I mentioned I had narrowed down the time to about 1635 - 1645, but I've also narrowed down the list of potential authors to 1 man: Hugo Grotius. (Now that I've mentioned his name, a certain regular on this board is going to magically appear and post snide remarks and cruel memes that damage my soul.😓)

*runs into room panting*

Sorry I am late. Traffic was horrible.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Just fyi this IS an already existing theory put forth by some highly regarded scholars 

Google "EModE Book of Mormon".

 

Well if that's the case I would question whether the "scholars" who put this forth should be considered "highly regarded." Sounds like a real stretch to me that can easily be disproven. 

But I'm willing to hear more about the theory. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Well if that's the case I would question whether the "scholars" who put this forth should be considered "highly regarded." Sounds like a real stretch to me that can easily be disproven. 

But I'm willing to hear more about the theory. 

A brief intro…

https://humanities.byu.edu/royalskousennolvol3/

Also

https://humanities.byu.edu/bad-grammar-and-the-book-of-mormon/

A good discussion pros and cons…

https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2019/03/on-old-english-and-the-book-of-mormon/

From one of the researchers who found this…

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-more-part-of-the-book-of-mormon-is-early-modern-english/

[Grug the Neanderthal]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

A brief intro…

https://humanities.byu.edu/royalskousennolvol3/

Also

https://humanities.byu.edu/bad-grammar-and-the-book-of-mormon/

A good discussion pros and cons…

https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2019/03/on-old-english-and-the-book-of-mormon/

From one of the researchers who found this…

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-more-part-of-the-book-of-mormon-is-early-modern-english/

I know a little bit about Royal Skousen's work on the Book of Mormon, but I have never heard that he believed that the Book of Mormon was actually written in Europe in the 1640s. 

If this is the case, then this seriously undermines his credibility in my book. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I know a little bit about Royal Skousen's work on the Book of Mormon, but I have never heard that he believed that the Book of Mormon was actually written in Europe in the 1640s. 

If this is the case, then this seriously undermines his credibility in my book. 

He doesn’t say that at all. First off it is the translation he is talking about, not what is believed to be the original texts.  
 

Second, he provides no explanation, draws no conclusions as far as I am aware.  As is clear in one of the links I provided.

Quote

In concluding his lecture, Skousen decided to put a series of common questions to rest. Although Early Modern English has a strong presence in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon is not entirely written in Early Modern English, Skousen clarified. “We need to continue to study the nature of the original language of the Book of Mormon,” he said. As to the question of who translated the original gold plates and why there might be language from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, he added, “I’m afraid we’re just going to have to wait for the answer from the Lord.”

I have heard off the cuff, just for fun speculation from a completely different scholar that perhaps several decades prior to Joseph getting the plates, a committee was formed in heaven with the Book of Mormon authors like Mormon and some experienced English translators, possibly some who worked on the Bible translations like Wycliffe and  Tyndale. This committee translated the Book of Mormon from the original language to English, which text was then transmitted to Joseph as revelation, which Joseph then dictated to the scribes.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Calm

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

He doesn’t say that at all.  He provides no explanation, draws no conclusions as far as I am aware.

I knew that didn't sound right.

So then what's his connection to this 1640 European author theory, if he's not one of the "highly regarded scholars" who put it forth?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

As to the question of who translated the original gold plates and why there might be language from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, he added, “I’m afraid we’re just going to have to wait for the answer from the Lord.”

Okay so it looks Royal Skousen did not put forth the theory that the Book of Mormon was originally translated in the 16th or 17th century in Europe. He merely asked a question about the archaic language. 

This question is easily answered.

The Lord or Joseph Smith (take your pick) intentionally translated the Book of Mormon into a similar language as the King James version of the Bible, which was the standard English Bible in America at that time. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I knew that didn't sound right.

So then what's his connection to this 1640 European author theory, if he's not one of the "highly regarded scholars" who put it forth?

He and Carmack found the language in the text.  
 

I added to my post above some info.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Okay so it looks Royal Skousen did not put the theory that the Book of Mormon was originally translated in the 16th or 17th century in Europe. He merely asked a question about the archaic language. 

This is question is easily answered.

The Lord or Joseph Smith (take your pick) intentionally translated the Book of Mormon into a similar language as the King James version of the Bible, which was the standard English Bible in America at that time. 

The language is earlier than the KJV Bible.  If that was the purpose, why not choose to translate it into identical language rather than language that was out of date by the time the KJV was created?

It is rather odd.

Edited January 21, 2023 by Calm

[Grug the Neanderthal]

Just now, Calm said:

He and Carmack found the language in the text.  

Okay, but he didn't put the theory that the Book or Mormon was written/translated in the 1600s. So who are these "highly regarded scholars" who put this theory forth?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

Just now, Calm said:

The language is earlier than the KJV Bible.

Why does that matter? The KJV utilized older English translations. 

Are we going to argue that the KJV wasn't really translated in 1611, because some of the language is similar to earlier translations?