The Book of Mormon: Ancient Record or 19th Century Creation?

[XuDan]

How wonderful. Thank, you, TOmNossor. This healthcare technologist pointed to a book I have not read before, but genuinely looks like fun: “The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain. The latter is a history of the war of 1812 deliberately written in a scriptural style. A traditional (non-statistical) comparison between this text and the Book of Mormon was apparently introduced by Rick Grunder in his 2008 bibliography Mormon Parallels.” The book is available, as so many are, at archive.org: archive.org/details/latewarbetweenun00inhunt I began reading it, then skimming through it. Even a brief glance shows There are so many phrases pre-echoing, and allusions to passages in, the Book of Mormon, that I have absolutely no doubt that this 1816 book was used by the author of the Book of Mormon.

I do hope you will give the pertinent sentences of McGuire that you believe relate to this thread. I would like to read them. But on the other hand, I am sorry, mate, I’ve reached my limit for that post of yours that contained that link. You gave links and references, and they and you alluded to further articles. It takes considerable time and effort to examine those. I have read and re-read thousands of words now, resulting from wanting to understand what you were arguing in a single post. It is frustrating when one reads a linked article, as I have a couple of times in those links, and finds that it is generally or completely irrelevant to the discussion, or so poorly argued that it is useful to neither side of a discussion.

Frankly, I enjoy research. That is why I often do read the links and do research beyond them. I am usually willing to read a person’s reasoning, and do expect them to use quotes, and present a summary or detailed explanation of their reason for their opinions (beliefs). However, I am just not willing to struggle through McGuire’s site to find what you, not I, believe is the relevant argument in all that. If you cannot quote the significant passages, or give an accurate summation of the arguments you want us to know about, from some people’s perspective (not mine) you might as well say nothing, as the effect will be about the same for a lot of people. Some people never click on links, no matter what side of a discussion they support. So a half dozen links are not a dazzling argument. They are hardly more likely to have a persuasive effect on people than is an unposted post.

There is a link in post #2 (linkified) that explores this book and it’s parallels, you may find it interesting. Here’s the link again: wordtreefoundation.github.io/thelatewar/

Unfortunately, I doubt you’ll get TOm to actually provide anything of what you’re asking. People here have been making similar requests of him for a while now, to no avail.

 

[XuDan]

I think this is possible but I disagree that Joseph Smith was not capable of doing this mostly on his own. Many LDS argue Joseph did not have enough formal education to have written such a work. But a formal education was not necessary to do so. Joseph was well-schooled in the bible and religious matters, and of the issues of the day pertaining to life during the 2nd Great Awakening. He was also known for having an excellent memory. He was quite capable of writing the BoM with the knowledge and resources he had.

I think there is plenty of room for compromise between the two viewpoints. Joseph did not compose the book in isolation from his social context. He had plenty of advisers and co-collaborators who formed the nucleus for the new religion. We cannot know for sure how much of one and how much of another. It is altogether possible that Oliver Cowdery supplied books and manuscripts from Ethan Smith’s library.

Chris, I agree that Smith held the faculties available to author the BoM on his own. Where I disagree is that because he could, he did. As Jerusha has pointed out, he actually used his social context as a tool. This is something he would do his whole life, he was very good at getting what he wanted from others. My point is that the LDS claim that Smith didn’t make it all up by himself, may be a true statement. The implication of their statement is that it was only with the help of God that he did. I point out that a different conclusion is possible that leaves their statement a mostly truthful one, he had help, just not from God.

I don’t rule out the possibility of him doing it by himself and manipulating those around him into unwittingly assisting him. I just find it more probable that he had help. Specifically Cowdery, he had the means, and he was made Smith’s “right hand man” (second elder of their newly created church) - which could speak to motive. As ‎L. Ron Hubbard (creator of Scientology) put it, “You don’t get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.” Smith and Cowdery where treasure hunters. Riches, wealth, and influence were primary motivators for them. The creation of a religion that includes doctrines like “United Order” are the ultimate in a long con.

 

[Jerusha]

From p. 741 of Mormon Parallels:

Readers who do not appreciate the Mormon parallels offered in this Bibliographic
Source may counter that I have carried such gardening “skills” into my own
scholarly endeavor. The crucial difference is that my Mormon parallel work
seeks only to isolate, from the totality of early nineteenth-century thought and
literature, examples which demonstrate that most of what Joseph Smith revealed
was already here in some form or extent. A diagram of a selected scripture’s
literary structure, on the other hand, must show its entire text in order to reveal the
full context of every element which is highlighted.

p. 767

For some Book of Mormon defenders, this commonality of usage might seem a
sure indication of ancient origins, since the Book of Mormon purports to emerge
from an Old Testament culture. Would one not expect the Nephite record to
emulate the language from which it sprang? But this dating form also appears
twice in the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 20:1, 21:3, when indicating April 6).
More significantly, it also occurs frequently throughout the text of The Late War.
My purpose in presenting the following tedious list is to dramatize the
prevalence of this Bible-sounding form in the nineteenth-century text at hand,
and to suggest the effect which such language can exert even upon the modern
reader if the mind be pre-conditioned by the Old Testament and Book of
Mormon to respond to such composition as if it were scripture . . .
in the sixth month of the same year, on the first day of the month, [p. 9]
on the twelfth [day] of the seventh month, about the fourth watch of the night,
[p. 24]
And it was about the sixteenth [day] of the eighth month [p. 26]
NOW it came to pass, on the nineteenth day of the eighth month, that one of the
tall ships of Columbia . . . [p. 30]
And it came to pass, on the fourth day of the tenth month, [p. 34;] On the eighth
day of the same month [p. 35]

and many more.

I cannot quote it in its entirety, for his (2014 ed.) review of Late War is 48 pages long.

 

[Jerusha]

As Jerusha has pointed out, he actually used his social context as a tool…

No, there is no value judgment placed on this action. As the Johnson brothers and Rick Grunder point out, any author uses his social and literary context as material for writing. Nothing is written in a vacuum. Contrary to those who would claim divine influence as sole inspiration.

 

[XuDan]

Mormon Parallels is well worth the read for those who have not done so.

 

[XuDan]

No, there is no value judgment placed on this action. As the Johnson brothers and Rick Grunder point out, any author uses his social and literary context as material for writing. Nothing is written in a vacuum. Contrary to those who would claim divine influence as sole inspiration.

Precisely. Which is why I find stronger probability in a collaborated effort than in a solitary effort. Authors today often thank others in their forwards for their insights, (name removed by moderator)ut, and contributions to their books. Obviously, this would have been detrimental to Smith’s purpose. As stated previously, the collaboration could have been equal contribution, minimal contribution, and every thing in between - but we will likely never know for sure.

 

[Jerusha]

Precisely. Which is why I find stronger probability in a collaborated effort than in a solitary effort. Authors today often thank others in their forwards for their insights, (name removed by moderator)ut, and contributions to their books. Obviously, this would have been detrimental to Smith’s purpose. As stated previously, the collaboration could have been equal contribution, minimal contribution, and every thing in between - but we will likely never know for sure.

Where is the like button?

 

[Tarquin]

There is a link in post #2 (linkified) that explores this book and it’s parallels, you may find it interesting. Here’s the link again: wordtreefoundation.github.io/thelatewar/

Thanx for the lynx!

And Oliver Cowdery was an itinerant----

bookseller.

Some things are obvious. Some things become obvious.
Thank you for the “heads up” about O.C. being a book-dealer.

Where is the like button?

I would have pressed it a dozen times by now for posts in this thread. Thanks for your enlightening posts, XuDan, Jerusha, Chris-WA.

 

[Jerusha]

From p. 741 of Mormon Parallels:

p. 767
and many more.

I cannot quote it in its entirety, for his (2014 ed.) review of Late War is 48 pages long.

I found out how to link it. rickgrunder.com/parallels/mp193.pdf

 

[XuDan]

I found out how to link it. rickgrunder.com/parallels/mp193.pdf

Love it!

 

[Arandur]

The small portion of the BOM that happens in the Old World if true corresponds well to geography and what we might expect to find when we look for a journey that happened in 600BC.
Perhaps the most problematic Biblical event, “The Exodus” in contrast does not survive as we would expect it to IF it were true (I follow many believing scholars in my acceptance of the exodus).
The New World is a VERY different archeological environment than the Old World. As I have pointed out here before almost no place names survive from BOM times AND those that do we are unlikely to have much or any idea how to pronounce. Population dynamics, geography and other points of contact WORK for the BOM, but only in aggregate do these things produce anything approaching compelling (which is IMO not the case for Old World BOM geography which in some individual points AND aggregate is compelling).
Nobody here agrees with me, but LDS scholars have been talking about this for years.
Ancient motifs (not archeology or geography lest I am misunderstood) have in the last 10-15 years lead to two scholars to claim they believe the BOM is not (or at least not merely) a 19th century production. You can read about Margaret Barker’s thoughts easily and if it is important, I can send you a link to Paul Owen’s very recent comments.
Charity, TOm

I have followed the scientific correlations (or rather, lack thereof) of the BoM with some interest for a good number of years. Archaeology and geography, demography, and biological history, etc…these things just DON’T line up in almost any capacity whatsoever with the BoM.

I have found this assertion from you rather mystifying, since what I DO hear from many of the more informed LDS folks I’ve read or corresponded with over the years is that they admit the lack of evidence, but either hold out hope for more, or have reconstructed their beliefs to accept the BoM and other Smithian works in non-literal senses.

I just haven’t seen any convincing connections, just lots of gymnastics to try to explain away the lack of evidence.

I’ve even read from several historians and archaeologists who left the LDS faith because they realized the evidence was monumentally against the historicity of the BoM.

So what is it that is so convincing about the supposed historicity of the BoM that is actually faith-building, as opposed to the consistent, coherent, evidence-based understandings held by the vast majority of non-LDS historians and archaeologists?

And even if there are occasional seeming correlations, if they even amount to more than rare coincidences not beyond the norm, why attribute them to Divine Inspiration in particular?

I note, for instance, not only the mountain of evidence from Scripture for the CC, set against the warnings that the devil can masquerade as an angel of light, and that similar “sacred” works from other religions (such as the Q’uran) can have seemingly miraculous circumstances or content…

 

[Tarquin]

I have followed the scientific correlations (or rather, lack thereof) of the BoM with some interest for a good number of years. Archaeology and geography, demography, and biological history, etc…these things just DON’T line up in almost any capacity whatsoever with the BoM.
…
I just haven’t seen any convincing connections, just lots of gymnastics to try to explain away the lack of evidence.

Quite seriously, I have seen not even unconvincing connections. I have read and heard *speculations *about locations, paths taken, geography, etc., but nothing as positive as a demonstrable “connection.”

There were many temples in the Mideast and in the Americas. We do not speculate about which one is the Temple at Jerusalem, nor which one is the Temple of Inanna in Uruk, or the Temple of the Sun in Mexico. But the Temple that Nephi built, and the Temple that Mosiah had the people come to, Mormons have zero certainty where to place those. No prophet will avail them. No seer will show them. No revelator will reveal to them. No translator will translate identifying markers on any temple in the Americas. No historian will chronicle, no archaeologist will guide, no theologian will divine the whereabouts of any cis-Atlantic temple, church, or synagogue mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

 

[Chris-WA]

I think there is plenty of room for compromise between the two viewpoints. Joseph did not compose the book in isolation from his social context. He had plenty of advisers and co-collaborators who formed the nucleus for the new religion. We cannot know for sure how much of one and how much of another. It is altogether possible that Oliver Cowdery supplied books and manuscripts from Ethan Smith’s library.

This could be correct. If so, one implication is that several others would have had to know that Joseph was a fraud from the very beginning.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Note that I’ve met many Christians who believe that the Bible is the inerrant, cohesive, *unique *channel of God’s views; to claim otherwise seems to be an application of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Thus, the sentiment that Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon is literal truth despite all evidence, and that their book picks and choose from the Bible does not necessarily disqualify their belief that God acted through Joseph Smith.

Catholics are not bound by the same irrational rules by which Evangelicals/Fundamentalists are bound.

Catholics are free to believe that Genesis is an accurate and literal description of how God created the universe, or to believe that Genesis is a poetic representation of the fact that God created everything from nothing, and that He created everything as a gift for us, his most beloved creatures. So far as creation goes, Catholics are free to believe in creationism, evolution, or any synthesis of the two.

The only requirement for Catholics to believe about creation is: No matter what methods God used to create the universe and us, we MUST believe that it is God who is the creator of all things, and that the human soul is directly created by God at the moment of our conception. The soul is not a product of evolution or any other natural process. God creates each individual soul at the moment of conception and no two souls are ever the same. Each soul is a one-of-a-kind individual.

My late mother used to tell me that God created me because He loved the very idea of me so much that He just could not stand to have me not exist. Perhaps that is a bit fanciful, but I think it captures quite beautifully the deeply personal relationship that God has with each of us.

Catholics understand that the bible (especially the OT) is a collection of books by many inspired authors from different cultures and times who wrote in many literary styles: Poetry, History, Didactic instruction, Religious Novels, Apocalyptic visions, Tales of Heroic Virtue, and many others. God, who invented language and all of its literary forms, is infinitely versatile in the expression of His divine will (as any Catholic would expect). The point of scripture is to understand what God is trying to teach us in these many forms of scripture that He inspired. It seems to me that being forced to accept a literalistic view of every book in the bible causes people to miss the lessons that God is trying to teach us because they need to spend so much mental energy suppressing the cognitive dissonance that such a legalistic and literalist constraint creates in the mind of the modern believer.

Just my opinion,
Paul

 

[PaulDupre1]

(Have you ever noticed how the BoM lacks any sense of Jewishness? Esp the part that is purported to be prior to Christ coming? It talks a great deal about the Holy Spirit, about being baptized etc, even before Christ comes. That they build a temple, but hello, they do not have the Ark of the Covenant, which is why the ancient Temples were built, to house the Ark and make sacrifices in it? Read the pre-Christ portion of the BoM. You are not reading anything of Jewish ways. It’s all Christian. Odd, since Yeshua was a Jew, dont you think?)

Not only that, but there were no Levites among the Lehites. Also, since Lehi was a descendant of Manasseh, whose mother was Egyptian, he and his descendants would not have been eligible to hold any priesthood whatsoever.

The Book of Abraham is quite clear that Egyptians pretended to hold the priesthood, but were not eligible to hold it because they were descendants of Cain. In fact, the BoA says that “Egyptus signifies that which is forbidden” (BoA 1:23). Well, sorry. Joseph, son of Jacob, married an Egyptian noble woman. Both of his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, were tainted with the blood of Cain, so all of their descendants were denied the priesthood (until 1978, when the LDS god apparently caved to financial pressure and changed his mind).

That means that every Mormon who got his or her patriarchal blessing and was pronounced to be of the lineage of Ephraim or Manasseh, was ineligible to hold the priesthood before 1978. So every deacon, teacher, priest, elder, bishop. stake president, 70, apostle and prophet of the LDS church held no priesthood whatsoever, and all of their baptisms, confirmations, ordinations, washings and anointings, endowments, sealings and 2nd annointings were all for naught.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

P.S.: I now hold the common priesthood of the baptized, which is way more priesthood than I ever held as a Mormon elder.

 

[system]

Just incredible.

WOW!!!

 

[TexanKnight]

The arguments made against the Book of Mormon are almost the same exact arguments that I have heard Atheists make against the Bible.

I guess we are all willing to go on faith…right?

 

[Horton]

The arguments made against the Book of Mormon are almost the same exact arguments that I have heard Atheists make against the Bible.

I guess we are all willing to go on faith…right?

If I remember correctly, not long ago you were very convicted regarding the lack of truth of the BoM and the LDS. I see now you changed your stated religion from Catholic to LDS. I always appreciated your posts.

Why the change? I’m just curious.

 

[TexanKnight]

If I remember correctly, not long ago you were very convicted regarding the lack of truth of the BoM and the LDS. I see now you changed your stated religion from Catholic to LDS. I always appreciated your posts.

Why the change? I’m just curious.

Conversion.

Which is from God.

I always try to follow God

 

[Chris-WA]

More parallels between the Bible and the BoM…

In the BoM, the Nephites had twelve disciples just like Jesus had twelve apostles in the Old World. A couple of strange parallels:

1. The New Testament apostles include men with three duplicate sets of names: Simon Peter, Simon the Canaanite, James the son of Alphaeus, James the son of Zebedee, Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot.

The BoM twelve also has three sets of duplicate names: two named Jonas, two named Mathoni (Mathoni and Mathonihah), and two named Kumen (Kumen and Kumenonhi).

1. Jesus’ apostles include three sets of brothers: Andrew and Simon, James and John, and Judas and James.

The BoM twelve also has two sets of brothers, and a father and son: Mathoni and Mathonihah, Nephi and Timothy, and Timothy’s son Jonas.

How about this comparison between the stories of Judith from the Bible and the decapitation of Laban in the BoM:

1. In this story Judith/Nephi are servants of God. They encounter Holofernes/Laban who wants to destroy God’s people (Judith 7:1, 8:7; 1 Nephi 3:25). Interestingly, “Laban” is a name that appears in Judith’s narrative (8:26).
2. Judith/Nephi leave/enter the city secretly by night. They find Holofernes/Laban upon the bed/ground, asleep and drunk with wine (Judith 13:2; 1 Nephi 4:4-5, 7).
3. Both take Holofernes/Laban by the hair and with his own sword cut off his head (Judith 13:6-8; 1 Nephi 4:9, 18).
4. Judith/Nephi then take some of Holofernes’/Laban’s possessions. When they rejoin their people, there is great rejoicing in their success (Judith 13:12, 14:9, 15:11; 1 Nephi 4:19, 38, 5:9).
5. Both groups celebrate by offering burnt offerings to the Lord (Judith 16:8; 1 Nephi 5:9).

The parallels between these two stories are quite remarkable and very hard to explain away.