Making a fair and thorough literary evaluation of Book of Mormon authorship

[RebeccaJ]

How the above relates to the Book of Mormon is that throughout it, if a reader can get past their own biases and explore whether the writing reflects genuine experience, they will find that indeed the writing reflects genuine experience rather than a contrived situation such as a fictional writer does.

ParkerD, there are modern examples of people writing of real experiences that people believe, absolutely, yet turn out to be a hoax. Several examples can be found from people who started blogs and wrote about something difficult occurring in their life. People believing them to the point of sending them money, cards, and crying with them when their story is sad.

I don’t know why you would think this is because of a bias on the part of the reader. If anything, the reader should beware.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, there are modern examples of people writing of real experiences that people believe, absolutely, yet turn out to be a hoax. Several examples can be found from people who started blogs and wrote about something difficult occurring in their life. People believing them to the point of sending them money, cards, and crying with them when their story is sad.

I don’t know why you would think this is because of a bias on the part of the reader. If anything, the reader should beware.

RJ,
Indeed, in today’s world and particularly the “internet world”, there can be “pretend” situations of all sorts (to put it mildly), and readers do obviously “need beware.” (The blog world is not my world at all, so I had never read that story until you posted this, nor heard of it.)

We actually have an example of a “pretend situation” in a repeated advertisement on this thread.

I suspect that if a reader had plumbed the details of the words written by the person whose story you cited, they would have been able to detect discrepancies and non-genuinity. But I don’t see that the original site is still up, to verify that first-hand.

My point about the Book of Mormon has been that there are perhaps fifty different “personas” or “word prints” that can be detected and that are consistent in and of themselves yet different moving from one writer or speaker to another. And each one presents genuine feeling that is palpable if the reader allows the words to penetrate the heart–if and only if.

It is far different than the blog world or the internet world of fake personas.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It is far different than the blog world or the internet world of fake personas.

That is where we disagree. I see no difference.

 

[LongJourney]

:ballspin: Whew!!! That conclusion is absolutely incredible!!!

Parker, do you mean my earlier version?
solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/sagawt0i.htm
Certainly still available.

 

[LongJourney]

Dale has chosen to not enter the fray. His comments are:

Dale:
“Plain and precious truths” can be removed in two different ways –
they can be excised, or they can be obscured by something else:
something that has the look and feel of “religion,” but which falls
far short of true theophany.

Leave religion to the religionists.
God knows His own.

MCB:
Hmmmmnnnn. Many thoughts here.

Dale:
I suppose that it is the height of vanity, to expect that we can manipulate
God into illuminating our lives. So I was not talking about our each creating
a "burning bush"experience for some sort of personal glorification.

Rather, I was talking about our being at least a little prepared for that
time – when it does happen.

Mormons may comprehend.
Catholics will understand, without explanations.

 

[ParkerD]

That is where we disagree. I see no difference.

That was ultimately my point. Spiritual insights and spiritual truths are confirmed by the Holy Ghost, not by physical evidence other than the “burning in the bosom” described in the Bible. So the person who insists on physical evidence that they can see and others can see jointly with them, will never be able to have the experiences of the Holy Ghost confirming truths to the soul because of their level of doubt about any such experience being possible.

So the evidence through literary analysis confirms by an “outward verifiable study” (if done seriously with true scholarship and not sham scholarship) that there were about 47 different authors of the Book of Mormon through either their writing or their spoken word.

But the ultimate confirming evidence is the spiritual confirmation of the Holy Ghost, which will be rejected by every person who insists on seeing the golden plates or seeing artifacts that perfectly confirm the historical account. Particularly will that be true of every person who can’t even explore their “inner core self” through overcoming their own childhood and youth defense mechanisms or “masks”, since they will assume everyone else has a mask and no one can be trusted.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

So the evidence through literary analysis confirms by an “outward verifiable study” (if done seriously with true scholarship and not sham scholarship) that there were about 47 different authors of the Book of Mormon through either their writing or their spoken word.

Which study?

 

[ParkerD]

Which study?

CatholicGuyNY,
I had earlier described an example. As far as the words “outward verifiable study”, I meant that such a study can be done by a serious student. They would take the word prints of the following authors/speakers:

Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, Amaron, Amaleki, Zenos, Zenoch (10)

Zeniff, King Noah, King Limhi, Abinadi, King Benjamin, Mosiah, Joseph in Egypt, Alma (10)

Alma the younger, Ammon, Lamoni, the father of Lamoni, Aaron, Sherem, Korihor, Amulek, Zeezrom, Gideon (10)

Zerahemnah, Ammoron, Amalickiah, Amlici, Pahoran, Captain Moroni, Mormon, Moroni, Ether, Jared (10)

The brother of Jared, Laman, Sariah, Samuel the Lamanite, Helaman, his son Helaman, Nephi son of Helaman, and Jesus Christ–the Risen Savior and Redeemer. (8) (48 total)

I suppose I have enough interest to complete such a study, but haven’t the time, and I recognize the reality that those who are going to spurn, will spurn no matter what is written that goes contrary to their preconceived beliefs. But my point was, it can be done. I provided one example. Let me know if you want a few more. That I could do with the amount of time I seem to be spending on this website.

 

[RebeccaJ]

That was ultimately my point. Spiritual insights and spiritual truths are confirmed by the Holy Ghost, not by physical evidence other than the “burning in the bosom” described in the Bible. So the person who insists on physical evidence that they can see and others can see jointly with them, will never be able to have the experiences of the Holy Ghost confirming truths to the soul because of their level of doubt about any such experience being possible.

So the evidence through literary analysis confirms by an “outward verifiable study” (if done seriously with true scholarship and not sham scholarship) that there were about 47 different authors of the Book of Mormon through either their writing or their spoken word.

But the ultimate confirming evidence is the spiritual confirmation of the Holy Ghost, which will be rejected by every person who insists on seeing the golden plates or seeing artifacts that perfectly confirm the historical account. Particularly will that be true of every person who can’t even explore their “inner core self” through overcoming their own childhood and youth defense mechanisms or “masks”, since they will assume everyone else has a mask and no one can be trusted.

I know you think you are being uber insightful and sincere. Only thing is ParkerD, God provided us with an intellect for a reason. You seem to think it is a hindrance to communion with Him, rather than a gift that comes from Him for this purpose.

It is too sad really, that people are made so afraid of Truth that they turn a blind eye to reality.

 

[ParkerD]

I know you think you are being uber insightful and sincere. Only thing is ParkerD, God provided us with an intellect for a reason. You seem to think it is a hindrance to communion with Him, rather than a gift that comes from Him for this purpose.

It is too sad really, that people are made so afraid of Truth that they turn a blind eye to reality.

RebeccaJ,

No, actually, I don’t think our intellect is a hindrance at all. I have doubted during this thread that very many people have even understood the intellectual side of the discussion, meaning that they don’t understand the idea of a “word print” or the idea of “authenticity” in an autobiographical writing. So to say that “turning a blind eye to reality” is what I do, is to show you have not understood the points I have made about those aspects of the Book of Mormon.

“Turning a blind eye to reality” is what a person does if they don’t deal realistically with how that could come about in a book supposedly either “borrowed” from Solomon Spaulding (with no word print similarity at all) or from Sidney Rigdon (same point) or from Oliver Cowdery (same point). Their word prints can be observed since each of those authors or speakers have words that can be compared, with their syntax, sentence structures, use of metaphors and similes and descriptive language. But have you ever bothered to do that? Yet you talk of “turning a blind eye to reality” and that God gave us an intellect to use on intelligent application of principles of knowledge.

I’m just saying that the literary aspects deal with a higher intellectual approach than trying to surface archeological evidences that either support or refute the existence of the Book of Mormon. The reality is that the book is there. It can be read. It can be studied. The 48 different authors/speakers can be compared by word prints and by literary comparison methods that are scholastically accepted methods for, say, studying the possibilities of the different potential authors who may be a “hidden Shakespeare”.

The comment about being “afraid of truth” shows the level of “scholarship” I observe often in this forum. What does that really mean? I have not once had a Catholic present a reasonable explanation using the Bible and intelligent use of the words from translation, about the “key of David,” about “no marriage in heaven,” about “Peter is the rock”, about baptism of babies, about the Eucharist being not a metaphor, or about confession to a priest being necessary for a broad spectrum of sins. So what, exactly, are you saying that I am “afraid of”? Certainly not of being “wrong” about those issues, that are so plainly clear in the Bible that I scratch my head every time I read the counter-assertions that are so completely non-intellectual and are instead only tradition-based.

Afraid of being wrong about the traditions of men, when the Bible gave plenty of warning about not heeding the traditions of men? No, thanks–that is not something I am going to be afraid of. Afraid of not being in the same company with Paul, who wrote of the need for seeking spiritual affirmation of truths from heaven, rather than a completely “wisdom of men” intellectual affirmation? Again, I will stay on the Paul side of the question, but have stated that the intellectual side of the question can be dealt with honestly and find that the Book of Mormon certainly can’t be explained by the intellectual side-stepping that doesn’t deal with the book being something that can be read, studied, compared with other texts, and thus tested against the “theories of men” about its origins.

 

[LongJourney]

Again, I will stay on the Paul side of the question, but have stated that the intellectual side of the question can be dealt with honestly and find that the Book of Mormon certainly can’t be explained by the intellectual side-stepping that doesn’t deal with the book being something that can be read, studied, compared with other texts, and thus tested against the “theories of men” about its origins.

That sentence is a clear example of the intellectual dishonesty of poor writing, and then blaming the reader for having difficulties with reading comprehension.

Is this what you meant?

The Book of Mormon certainly can be read, studied, and compared with other texts. People have done the same with the Bible. It can be studied as literature, its origins can be tested, and the original meanings revealed. :coffeeread:

 

[SirThomasMore]

RebeccaJ,

No, actually, I don’t think our intellect is a hindrance at all. I have doubted during this thread that very many people have even understood the intellectual side of the discussion, meaning that they don’t understand the idea of a “word print” or the idea of “authenticity” in an autobiographical writing. So to say that “turning a blind eye to reality” is what I do, is to show you have not understood the points I have made about those aspects of the Book of Mormon.

“Turning a blind eye to reality” is what a person does if they don’t deal realistically with how that could come about in a book supposedly either “borrowed” from Solomon Spaulding (with no word print similarity at all) or from Sidney Rigdon (same point) or from Oliver Cowdery (same point). Their word prints can be observed since each of those authors or speakers have words that can be compared, with their syntax, sentence structures, use of metaphors and similes and descriptive language. But have you ever bothered to do that? Yet you talk of “turning a blind eye to reality” and that God gave us an intellect to use on intelligent application of principles of knowledge.

I’m just saying that the literary aspects deal with a higher intellectual approach than trying to surface archeological evidences that either support or refute the existence of the Book of Mormon. The reality is that the book is there. It can be read. It can be studied. The 48 different authors/speakers can be compared by word prints and by literary comparison methods that are scholastically accepted methods for, say, studying the possibilities of the different potential authors who may be a “hidden Shakespeare”.

The comment about being “afraid of truth” shows the level of “scholarship” I observe often in this forum. What does that really mean? I have not once had a Catholic present a reasonable explanation using the Bible and intelligent use of the words from translation, about the “key of David,” about “no marriage in heaven,” about “Peter is the rock”, about baptism of babies, about the Eucharist being not a metaphor, or about confession to a priest being necessary for a broad spectrum of sins. So what, exactly, are you saying that I am “afraid of”? Certainly not of being “wrong” about those issues, that are so plainly clear in the Bible that I scratch my head every time I read the counter-assertions that are so completely non-intellectual and are instead only tradition-based.

Afraid of being wrong about the traditions of men, when the Bible gave plenty of warning about not heeding the traditions of men? No, thanks–that is not something I am going to be afraid of. Afraid of not being in the same company with Paul, who wrote of the need for seeking spiritual affirmation of truths from heaven, rather than a completely “wisdom of men” intellectual affirmation? Again, I will stay on the Paul side of the question, but have stated that the intellectual side of the question can be dealt with honestly and find that the Book of Mormon certainly can’t be explained by the intellectual side-stepping that doesn’t deal with the book being something that can be read, studied, compared with other texts, and thus tested against the “theories of men” about its origins.

Parker, you try too hard to deflect from the easy answers. You know that the BM claims to be a historical book, yet, there is no evidence to support the claim. To deflect from that, you try to fit square pegs into round holes.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,

No, actually, I don’t think our intellect is a hindrance at all. I have doubted during this thread that very many people have even understood the intellectual side of the discussion, meaning that they don’t understand the idea of a “word print” or the idea of “authenticity” in an autobiographical writing. So to say that “turning a blind eye to reality” is what I do, is to show you have not understood the points I have made about those aspects of the Book of Mormon.

“Turning a blind eye to reality” is what a person does if they don’t deal realistically with how that could come about in a book supposedly either “borrowed” from Solomon Spaulding (with no word print similarity at all) or from Sidney Rigdon (same point) or from Oliver Cowdery (same point). Their word prints can be observed since each of those authors or speakers have words that can be compared, with their syntax, sentence structures, use of metaphors and similes and descriptive language. But have you ever bothered to do that? Yet you talk of “turning a blind eye to reality” and that God gave us an intellect to use on intelligent application of principles of knowledge.

ParkerD, perhaps you are unaware of a study that showed exactly what you are denying. This is the reality of your BoM.

“Principles of knowledge”. = when you can’t support your claims with reality, just make something up.

The comment about being “afraid of truth” shows the level of “scholarship” I observe often in this forum. What does that really mean? I have not once had a Catholic present a reasonable explanation using the Bible and intelligent use of the words from translation, about the “key of David,” about “no marriage in heaven,” about “Peter is the rock”, about baptism of babies, about the Eucharist being not a metaphor, or about confession to a priest being necessary for a broad spectrum of sins. So what, exactly, are you saying that I am “afraid of”? Certainly not of being “wrong” about those issues, that are so plainly clear in the Bible that I scratch my head every time I read the counter-assertions that are so completely non-intellectual and are instead only tradition-based.

deflection

Afraid of being wrong about the traditions of men, when the Bible gave plenty of warning about not heeding the traditions of men? No, thanks–that is not something I am going to be afraid of. Afraid of not being in the same company with Paul, who wrote of the need for seeking spiritual affirmation of truths from heaven, rather than a completely “wisdom of men” intellectual affirmation? Again, I will stay on the Paul side of the question, but have stated that the intellectual side of the question can be dealt with honestly and find that the Book of Mormon certainly can’t be explained by the intellectual side-stepping that doesn’t deal with the book being something that can be read, studied, compared with other texts, and thus tested against the “theories of men” about its origins.

Please provide the evidence for the BoM that is something more than your feelings about it.

 

[ParkerD]

CatholicGuyNY,
I suppose that given the recent challenges on this thread to the idea of “word prints” in the Book of Mormon and how they show authenticity beyond a claim that the text was “plagiarized” or “copied from the Bible”, I’ll provide more examples:

The following phrases are distinct in the Book of Mormon, and not in the Bible nor in the writings of Rigdon or Cowdery or Spaulding:

Nephi word prints: “mighty even unto the power of deliverance”
“cast off forever”
(angel speaking to Nephi) “awful state of blindness”
Nephi:
“stumble exceedingly”
“one Shepherd over all the earth”
“shall manifest himself unto all nations”
“true fold of God”
“fiery darts of the adversary”

Lehi word prints:
“continuously running unto the fountain of all righteousness”
“dark and dreary wilderness”
“large and spacious field”
“desirable above all other fruit”
“numberless concourses of people”
“a great and spacious building”
“lost and fallen state”
“dwindling of the Jews in unbelief”
“course of the Lord is one eternal round”
“natural branches of the olive-tree”

Abinadi word prints:

“cuts you to your hearts”
“a type and a shadow”
“God breaketh the bands of death”
“founder of peace”
“people shall see eye to eye and shall confess before God”
“own carnal wills and desires”
“arms of mercy were extended”
“tremble and repent of your sins”

Alma and Amulek as missionary companions:

“do not procrastinate the day of your repentance”

Amulek:
“the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed”
“that awful crisis”
“the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn”

King Benjamin and later Moroni:

“abounding in good works”

So there you have another sampling of unique word prints from the Book of Mormon. There are probably a hundred more–this sampling above was from about twelve pages of text.

 

[SirThomasMore]

well, as often as y’all change the Book of Mormon (allegedly a perfect book), the easier it is to make it how you want.

For example, prior to the DNA discovery, Lamannites were the PRINCIPLE anscestors of the American Indians…

But after the DNA discovery, the 2006 Book of Mormon changed it to read the Lanamites are AMONG the anscestors of the American Indians.

The change is in the second paragraph of the introduction to the 2006 Book of Mormon, the most recent printing of the book published by Doubleday. The last sentence of that paragraph, which discusses the fate of ancient civilizations, stated in previous editions that the Lamanites, a nation of people that originated in Jerusalem, “are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”

The newest edition states the Lamanites are “are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”

Amazing

 

[ParkerD]

Explanation about the words “principal ancestors”:

Those words are in an introduction that was not written by Mormon, Moroni, nor Joseph Smith. It was written as an introduction to the book, not as “part of the book”. It did contain a commonly held opinion among many LDS at the time that introduction was written, but a careful reader of the actual text of the Book of Mormon finds that there were other groups of peoples in the New World who would participate in the wars against the Lamanite remnants in fulfillment of the prophecies in the Book of Mormon itself. The Lamanite remnants were prophesied to nearly become extinct as a people–to have only a small group remain but who would have descendants among the remnant populations who were thus “the seed of my brethren” as described by Nephi when speaking of the group who were found by Columbus in 1492 in Hispaniola (the Arawak Indians).

Some of the Arawak remnants lived in the Amazon River Basin in South America, but most lived in the Caribbean islands, and most of the Arawak Indians died by the mid-1500’s because of European-origin illnesses or forced labor camps.

So the words “among the ancestors of the American Indians” is a change that reflects better scholarship of having considered the text of the Book of Mormon itself about the surviving remnant populations in the New World.

 

[LongJourney]

So there you have another sampling of unique word prints from the Book of Mormon. There are probably a hundred more–this sampling above was from about twelve pages of text.

No-one makes the point that researchers have found the origins of ALL plagiarized material and authors have been found. The chart below, worked up by Dale Broadhurst from the Jockers study contains some very interesting gaps.

My apologies to the mods for copying an oversize image.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[SirThomasMore]

wow

 

[ParkerD]

To any reader,
I wouldn’t call what Jockers wrote about the Book of Mormon origins a “study”. A “study” implies real scholarship. His contained mere conjecture and computer analysis of that conjecture. It is a laughable level of applied thought, in today’s world.

 

[LongJourney]

It is a laughable level of applied thought, in today’s world.

If you have the resources and statistical knowledge to refute it, go right ahead.

Bruce Schaalje ran a study that attempted to refute it, and came up with some interesting results that confirm some of Rigdon’s word-print, which is the most debatable. Then he obscured the rest of his results.

Go ahead and continue denying. You have the right to deny the evidence. It doesn’t bother me, although it does seem ridiculous.