Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_honorentheos]

I appreciate the additional thoughts, Reverend. I can see the question of how the Book of Mormon came to be as very intriguing and certainly one that would be electric if answered definitively. In that regard I can see the speculation as being rewarding and necessary to discover potential veins to mine for further hints or nuggets of information. That certainly is a necessary and worthy pursuit.

Now, I think the question of Book of Mormon authorship has more than historical importance for those of us who debate the foundational claims of the LDS church for multiple reasons. Not least of which is the Church relies on it's divine origin to support many, many claims and practices which I think have more immediate impact. As you yourself have provided the example numerous times, there are points where the Church demands resistance to protect or offer space for those who are impacted by the authority claims of the Church. In the last week, I've seen this more personally than I'd like as a close, younger family member struggling with gender identity issues living in Utah attempted to end their life. They are doing better, and the family has rallied around them regardless of their views on the Church. But it seems so unnecessary that it comes to that. A cousin of mine also passed away last week way too early in an accident where they had been living somewhat estranged from their TBM family members as they had chosen to live a different kind of lifestyle. That has been like watching an earthquake at a remove as their parents and siblings have responded with various forms of grief and conflict as to how one reacts to a passing that has eternal implications in their minds.

I say all that because I look at the FairMormon response or MG's comments and see the effect of people finding a weakness in the argument and leveraging that to their benefit and the benefit of this same authority. So when I am looking at this, there is a certain parsimony I feel needs to be applied to the issue that is meant to cut away the fat of speculation to cleanly expose the meat of the firmly defensible. It's clear, the Book of Mormon is a work of 19th century authorship. There's much that could be entertained in exploring what that means and it is entertaining to do so , to be sure. And it has to be acknowledge that in the context of those discussions, the questions are necessary to produce the fruit that leads to the next tier of solidly defensible critiques of the Book of Mormon and the authority the Church claims from it for itself. But I want to draw the line between the two clearly because I don't think it does the world a service to let them bleed together carelessly. Smith could have heard or read the phrase directly, or perhaps the fact he uses it elsewhere and later in life shows it's in his vocabulary from somewhere. Perhaps he had it from his background elsewhere and it was a turn of phrase that sounded ancient or might be inherent to frontier folk magic and belief in the occult power of objects? I don't know and while entertaining as questions go to figure out it's source, I think it's valuable to point out the speculative questions start after it is clearly the case The Late War did not get it from Gold Plates. So it is one more bit of evidence showing the language of the Book of Mormon is rooted in the 19th century and explainable via the same mechanisms that gave rise to The Late War.

[_Kishkumen]

I appreciate the additional thoughts, Reverend. I can see the question of how the Book of Mormon came to be as very intriguing and certainly one that would be electric if answered definitively. In that regard I can see the speculation as being rewarding and necessary to discover potential veins to mine for further hints or nuggets of information. That certainly is a necessary and worthy pursuit.

It is interesting, and one can learn a lot by doing it!

Now, I think the question of Book of Mormon authorship has more than historical importance for those of us who debate the foundational claims of the LDS church for multiple reasons. Not least of which is the Church relies on it's divine origin to support many, many claims and practices which I think have more immediate impact. As you yourself have provided the example numerous times, there are points where the Church demands resistance to protect or offer space for those who are impacted by the authority claims of the Church. In the last week, I've seen this more personally than I'd like as a close, younger family member struggling with gender identity issues living in Utah attempted to end their life. They are doing better, and the family has rallied around them regardless of their views on the Church. But it seems so unnecessary that it comes to that. A cousin of mine also passed away last week way too early in an accident where they had been living somewhat estranged from their TBM family members as they had chosen to live a different kind of lifestyle. That has been like watching an earthquake at a remove as their parents and siblings have responded with various forms of grief and conflict as to how one reacts to a passing that has eternal implications in their minds.

This is absolutely gutting news, honor. It fills me with deep sadness to read of suffering and loss of life that one would hope we could prevent in some way. I know that having clear answers to some of these questions can be liberating to people who are suffering under the LDS Church's teachings and authority.

I say all that because I look at the FairMormon response or MG's comments and see the effect of people finding a weakness in the argument and leveraging that to their benefit and the benefit of this same authority. So when I am looking at this, there is a certain parsimony I feel needs to be applied to the issue that is meant to cut away the fat of speculation to cleanly expose the meat of the firmly defensible. It's clear, the Book of Mormon is a work of 19th century authorship. There's much that could be entertained in exploring what that means and it is entertaining to do so , to be sure. And it has to be acknowledge that in the context of those discussions, the questions are necessary to produce the fruit that leads to the next tier of solidly defensible critiques of the Book of Mormon and the authority the Church claims from it for itself. But I want to draw the line between the two clearly because I don't think it does the world a service to let them bleed together carelessly.

Yes, LDS apologetics does get mileage out of uncertainty. And, the LDS Church derives its authority in no small part from its historical narrative. I also think it is fair to say that the LDS Church's historical narrative is often inaccurate and, in parts, simply untrue. The Book of Mormon is a 19th century document, as is the Book of Abraham, the JST, and any other bit Joseph claimed to have learned about the past via revelation. Knowing that Joseph Smith was not in touch with antiquity in any straightforward way can be liberating for those who are suffering with the idea that God has set up his LDS Church in certain ways that make them feel unloved and unwanted. I desire liberation for those people. I want them to love themselves and live long lives.

The most fundamental condemnation of the LDS Church, however, is the fact that it is driving innocent young people to their graves. It is not protecting children from harm. Indeed, it fills their heads with ideas that make some of them want to take their own lives. Joseph Smith could have translated real gold plates from a real Christian Hebrew civilization in Ancient America, and the Church's teachings and actions in this regard should still be an absolute deal-breaker. One should be driven to ask how it is that a loving God could allow such things to happen. People should demand to know the doctrinal basis for treating lovely young people so cruelly (there is none). There is no justification to be found.

Even if one were to say that Joseph Smith was a prophet, I don't think there is any way to square that claim with the utter disregard in which the Church holds the safety and welfare of its children and youth. The LDS Church leaves its children to be prey to pedophiles, and it tortures and grinds into dust our dear LGBTQ+ family members. For this reason, leaving everything else aside, I argue that the LDS Church has abdicated any claim it has upon its members. No 19th century revelation, however wonderful or true it might be (and I am not saying it is), can justify what is being done to the children and youth of the LDS Church now.

And, by the way, it does not justify polygamy, or Brigham Young's tyranny of Deseret, or LDS racism, or the fight against women's rights and equality, or any of the long litany of wrongheaded and destructive things the LDS Church has done and continues to do. So, how does history rescue the LDS Church from its own record? I don't think it does, and I don't think it can. All that can be done is that the LDS Church must aggressively repent and reform. There is no excuse, even a hypothetically true Book of Mormon, for what the LDS Church has done to harm people.

[_Meadowchik]

The most fundamental condemnation of the LDS Church, however, is the fact that it is driving innocent young people to their graves. It is not protecting children from harm. Indeed, it fills their heads with ideas that make some of them want to take their own lives. Joseph Smith could have translated real gold plates from a real Christian Hebrew civilization in Ancient America, and the Church's teachings and actions in this regard should still be an absolute deal-breaker. One should be driven to ask how it is that a loving God could allow such things to happen. People should demand to know the doctrinal basis for treating lovely young people so cruelly (there is none). There is no justification to be found.

That pain creates often unseen ripples of pain where hope and meaning get obliviated. This reminds me of a family I know with their child being protected by the ex-Mormon mother and being shamed by the LDS father. The child is in continual danger of giving up on the world because the persecution is so great. Their mother is in a state of constant hypervigilance. Years and years of this crushes the soul of both mother and child.

[_Philo Sofee]

The most fundamental condemnation of the LDS Church, however, is the fact that it is driving innocent young people to their graves. It is not protecting children from harm. Indeed, it fills their heads with ideas that make some of them want to take their own lives. Joseph Smith could have translated real gold plates from a real Christian Hebrew civilization in Ancient America, and the Church's teachings and actions in this regard should still be an absolute deal-breaker. One should be driven to ask how it is that a loving God could allow such things to happen. People should demand to know the doctrinal basis for treating lovely young people so cruelly (there is none). There is no justification to be found.

Even if one were to say that Joseph Smith was a prophet, I don't think there is any way to square that claim with the utter disregard in which the Church holds the safety and welfare of its children and youth. The LDS Church leaves its children to be prey to pedophiles, and it tortures and grinds into dust our dear LGBTQ+ family members. For this reason, leaving everything else aside, I argue that the LDS Church has abdicated any claim it has upon its members. No 19th century revelation, however wonderful or true it might be (and I am not saying it is), can justify what is being done to the children and youth of the LDS Church now.

And, by the way, it does not justify polygamy, or Brigham Young's tyranny of Deseret, or LDS racism, or the fight against women's rights and equality, or any of the long litany of wrongheaded and destructive things the LDS Church has done and continues to do. So, how does history rescue the LDS Church from its own record? I don't think it does, and I don't think it can. All that can be done is that the LDS Church must aggressively repent and reform. There is no excuse, even a hypothetically true Book of Mormon, for what the LDS Church has done to harm people.

Kish, your nobility and love is overwhelmingly impressive. I follow your desires and hopes for a better future. I'm also not quite sure how to go about it, but in my lame efforts, it is for these reasons you state here so powerfully which I also operate.

[Guest]

Hi Reverend, I heartily agree with your comments. I do think what you pointed out deserves our keeping a few things in mind when it comes to the LDS church and how it's groomed it's own membership.

For starters, the church teaches obedience is the same thing as moral judgement, undermining the processes of ethics-based morality. To the member who sees and even feels uncomfortable with how the church talks about and treats vulnerable people among it's membership, it teaches that the correct reaction to questioning if something is right or wrong is to look to the leadership. Of course they should also pray about it, and look to the scriptures. But the final, definitive filter is what the church teaches and what the leader has to say on the subject. We watch MG do it over and over on the board, pointing to authorities as substitute for doing any thinking on a matter. So when we talk about the authority the church derives from the claims of divine origin for the Book of Mormon, we're also talking about the central mechanism by which the church directs people to abdicate their moral reasoning even as they are trying very hard to be good people.

This ties into the way we confront information that contradicts our underlying beliefs and views. As psychologists tell us, when a person encounters conflicting information that calls a belief into question the threshold we use to filter it is, "MUST I accept this?" That's a very easily cleared hurdle. Scarily easy in most cases. "Must I accept that Joseph Smith may have picked up the term, 'curious workmanship' from Josephus or Hunt?" The answer is no. If this is the hurdle one encounters when first learning of the evidence in The Late War, then the response is likely to be dismissal because it's easy to see it's speculative and, even if possibly true, not particularly consequential. "Must I accept that The Late War demonstrates a book written at the same time as the Book of Mormon attempting to sound biblical ends up sounding like the Book of Mormon?" Yes. This is a fact that is indisputable. "Must I accept The Late War includes the same, and even more, so-called indicators of ancient Hebrew authorship despite Hunt not being known to have expertise or understanding of these structures?" Yes. This is indisputable.

Notice the checklist MG went through in the last page or so. We talked about how The Late War showed a known 19th century work could have all the same indicators of ancient authorship the Book of Mormon claims by simply attempting to sound biblical. MG ran into that and found the question, "Must I accept this?" troubling enough he couldn't just dismiss it outright. So he asked about a specific form of Hebraism, chiasmus, in the attempt to find something he could use to finally clear the hurdle of not having to accept the underlying issue The Late War presents. Everybody Wang Chung quickly sent him a link to the discussion on chiasmus from the Johnsons' paper with the example it included. MG's response was to look at it and decide what mattered was a level of complexity of chiasmus, not only it's presence, so he seemed to be working into a way to settle the conflict in his mind with that. It became the bare minimum he needed to be able to answer to himself that he didn't need to accept the challenge posed by The Late War. It demanded reminding him that the issue isn't the complexity of the chiasmus. It's that it shows up at all while Hunt was never claiming anything other than to be mimicking biblical language. Simple or complex, it's presence can't be dismissed away as, "I don't need to accept this."

It's for this reason I think it's valuable to define what is being claimed, and what is being speculated on but isn't central to the argument. The audience is looking for the nearest door out, and they are good people who have had the tools for making independent moral judgements withheld by the organization wanting them to dismiss anything that appears critical. I, for one, won't give the church the advantage of making a door easy to find and readily accessible due to relying on speculation to score a point when the underlying evidence that presents the primary issue for church authority claims is sound and meaningful. I think it's valuable to make sure the critical claim is delineated from the speculation. Must ANYONE accept something that is understood to be speculation? Of course not. And we all know that labeling something as speculative while protecting the core argument from the thing being speculated on works as long as it's clear where the lines are drawn between the two.

[_Kishkumen]

Kish, your nobility and love is overwhelmingly impressive. I follow your desires and hopes for a better future. I'm also not quite sure how to go about it, but in my lame efforts, it is for these reasons you state here so powerfully which I also operate.

Hey, Philo. I appreciate your kind thought, but I assure you that I struggle to do the right thing. What my comments reflect is, for better or worse, my rejection of the LDS priesthood authority as a failed system that has no claim on our loyalty and obedience. I commend you for your work to fight the harm the LDS Church is doing.

[_mentalgymnast]

Notice the checklist MG went through in the last page or so. We talked about how The Late War showed a known 19th century work could have all the same indicators of ancient authorship the Book of Mormon claims by simply attempting to sound biblical. MG ran into that and found the question, "Must I accept this?" troubling enough he couldn't just dismiss it outright. So he asked about a specific form of Hebraism, chiasmus, in the attempt to find something he could use to finally clear the hurdle of not having to accept the underlying issue The Late War presents. Everybody Wang Chung quickly sent him a link to the discussion on chiasmus from the Johnsons' paper with the example it included. MG's response was to look at it and decide what mattered was a level of complexity of chiasmus, not only it's presence, so he seemed to be working into a way to settle the conflict in his mind with that. It became the bare minimum he needed to be able to answer to himself that he didn't need to accept the challenge posed by The Late War. It demanded reminding him that the issue isn't the complexity of the chiasmus. It's that it shows up at all while Hunt was never claiming anything other than to be mimicking biblical language. Simple or complex, it's presence can't be dismissed away as, "I don't need to accept this."

It's for this reason I think it's valuable to define what is being claimed, and what is being speculated on but isn't central to the argument. The audience is looking for the nearest door out, and they are good people who have had the tools for making independent moral judgements withheld by the organization wanting them to dismiss anything that appears critical.

That TLW and the Book of Mormon both show the imprints of 19h century influence really doesn't bother me in and of itself. I don't see that as being a significant challenge. The level of ACTUAL complexity of chiasmus DOES matter, however. For rather complex REAL chiasmus to show up in the Book of Mormon is a point of real interest. The fact that there are examples of simple chiasms in the D&C does not convince me that those examples are anything other than Bible speak from Joseph's day. The stuff in the Book of Mormon goes way beyond that.

If you took the time to look at the link I posted for the Johnson's purported 'finding' of chiasmus in TLW you can see that it is a less than stellar example of anything representing complex and cohesive/purposeful poetic writing. It is fabricated to try and prove a point they're wanting to put out there.

In other words, comparing chiasmus in the Book of Mormon with Dr. Suess, the D&C, the New York Times, etc., is just a way out for the critics, in my opinion.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

That TLW and the Book of Mormon both show the imprints of 19h century influence really doesn't bother me in and of itself. I don't see that as being a significant challenge. The level of ACTUAL complexity of chiasmus DOES matter, however. For rather complex REAL chiasmus to show up in the Book of Mormon is a point of real interest. The fact that there are examples of simple chiasms in the D&C does not convince me that those examples are anything other than Bible speak from Joseph's day. The stuff in the Book of Mormon goes way beyond that.

If you took the time to look at the link I posted for the Johnson's purported 'finding' of chiasmus in TLW you can see that it is a less than stellar example of anything representing complex and cohesive/purposeful poetic writing. It is fabricated to try and prove a point they're wanting to put out there.

In other words, comparing chiasmus in the Book of Mormon with Dr. Suess, the D&C, the New York Times, etc., is just a way out for the critics, in my opinion.

Regards,
MG

I remember looking at the supposed complex chiamus in the Book of Mormon. One of the first things I noticed was text that didn't fit into the chiamus that was being ignored. If you don't ignore it it makes a loose chiastic structure, but one you would expect to see by chance, especially when one realizes it is a common English writing and communicating style. MG likes to argue errors in the Book of Mormon result from Joseph putting things in his own words, expect for certain parts like chiamus. It also ignores chiamus does not translate well from one language to another. Consistency is not a friend of the LDS apologist like MG.

[_honorentheos]

Notice the checklist MG went through in the last page or so. We talked about how The Late War showed a known 19th century work could have all the same indicators of ancient authorship the Book of Mormon claims by simply attempting to sound biblical. MG ran into that and found the question, "Must I accept this?" troubling enough he couldn't just dismiss it outright. So he asked about a specific form of Hebraism, chiasmus, in the attempt to find something he could use to finally clear the hurdle of not having to accept the underlying issue The Late War presents. Everybody Wang Chung quickly sent him a link to the discussion on chiasmus from the Johnsons' paper with the example it included. MG's response was to look at it and decide what mattered was a level of complexity of chiasmus, not only it's presence, so he seemed to be working into a way to settle the conflict in his mind with that. It became the bare minimum he needed to be able to answer to himself that he didn't need to accept the challenge posed by The Late War. It demanded reminding him that the issue isn't the complexity of the chiasmus. It's that it shows up at all while Hunt was never claiming anything other than to be mimicking biblical language. Simple or complex, it's presence can't be dismissed away as, "I don't need to accept this."

It's for this reason I think it's valuable to define what is being claimed, and what is being speculated on but isn't central to the argument. The audience is looking for the nearest door out, and they are good people who have had the tools for making independent moral judgements withheld by the organization wanting them to dismiss anything that appears critical.

That TLW and the Book of Mormon both show the imprints of 19h century influence really doesn't bother me in and of itself. I don't see that as being a significant challenge. The level of ACTUAL complexity of chiasmus DOES matter, however. For rather complex REAL chiasmus to show up in the Book of Mormon is a point of real interest. The fact that there are examples of simple chiasms in the D&C does not convince me that those examples are anything other than Bible speak from Joseph's day. The stuff in the Book of Mormon goes way beyond that.

As I noted above, MG, you were looking for the first exit you could feel comfortable taking to tell yourself you don't have to accept what the evidence is demonstrating.

But keep in mind what the Book of Mormon doesn't do is align with the actual history of the New World while aligning quite well with beliefs about the native americans and an extinct race of natives destroyed by the so-called Indians. The Book of Mormon doesn't align with what we know about the religious beliefs present on the American continents until at least the arrival of the Spanish but it does align quite well with the brand of Christianity circulating around Smith in the mid-1820's. It also doesn't align with the brand of Christianity Smith developed over the 15 years after it's publication. It's a time capsule of the beliefs Smith seems to have been exposed to in 1828-29. It claims things that are impossible like the journey of the Jaredites that itself has rooted itself in a mythical story that isn't supported by what we know about linguistics, it asserts knowledge/conditions that never existed in the New World while missing information it should have been able to demonstrate had it been authentically ancient. It is for all intents and purposes a book for 1829. It is in that context that The Late War evidence is inserted, demonstrating that whatever you think is present and ancient in the Book of Mormon is able to be found in a known work of the same time period. You want to tell yourself that Smith cheating on Emma is a-ok because we don't know everything God knows but the Book of Mormon is certainly part of what God gave us to help illuminate his plan? Sure. You do that. Ignore that the Mormon religion practically demands a literal Adam and a literal global flood due to doctrine yet these are certainly mythical stories as evidenced by established and essential aspects of science. Ignore that the entire concept of a physical but also eternal being is simply impossible to reconcile with how time works. Ignore the history of the Semitic peoples that gave rise to the Bible, the issues with the New Testament that clearly show the concept of an original Church established by Christ that needed to be restored by Smith has no historical support yet was a major topic in, you guessed it, 1828-29.

[_Kishkumen]

For starters, the church teaches obedience is the same thing as moral judgement, undermining the processes of ethics-based morality. To the member who sees and even feels uncomfortable with how the church talks about and treats vulnerable people among it's membership, it teaches that the correct reaction to questioning if something is right or wrong is to look to the leadership. Of course they should also pray about it, and look to the scriptures. But the final, definitive filter is what the church teaches and what the leader has to say on the subject. We watch MG do it over and over on the board, pointing to authorities as substitute for doing any thinking on a matter. So when we talk about the authority the church derives from the claims of divine origin for the Book of Mormon, we're also talking about the central mechanism by which the church directs people to abdicate their moral reasoning even as they are trying very hard to be good people.

Thank you for patiently elaborating on your reasoning, honor. I have quoted the above paragraph because it is the one that speaks to me most. It reminds me of a phone conversation with someone dear to me back when I was attending BYU. This dear one told me a story about a friend who was having vivid dreams about the end of the world. Evidently these dreams were so affecting that they convinced the friend’s excommunicated husband to rejoin the LDS Church.

My dear one was pretty shaken up. What to do? As I reflected for a moment I felt a spark of inspiration. I spoke, “If you are righteous, it does not matter what happens. Don’t be upset. I don’t think anything is about to happen. But, in the end, all that matters is your clear conscience before God.”

Eventually, the friend’s husband left the LDS Church a second time. The end of the world has not yet arrived, and I am fairly sure that the friend’s dreams will not come true.

People choose their own parts of these big problems to deal with. So long as we act according to our best lights and seek to do good, I think we’re OK. I decided some time ago that I prefer tackling what does not work about the LDS Church as it is now. When it comes to the history, I am not so concerned. What bothers me is what happens in the present, so I reserve my impassioned criticisms for that stuff.

My gripes about Mopologetics really centered on how they treat people poorly in the present. Their scholarship or whatever is much less interesting to me except as a fun curiosity.

As a historian, I follow my own interests, and I think other historians understand that. If my thoughts have any impact—which I doubt—they will be the result of my steady and firm apathy about what the LDS Church pushes as history and its agenda. I understand the choice of seeking out and finding the best strategy for destroying others’ testimonies. I just don’t care about testimonies one way or the other. I pursue the historical questions that interest me without any thought of testimonies.

If someone behaves badly, if someone adds to the suffering of innocents, THAT is what I care about. That is what I would like others to care more about, church or no church. If the LDS Church magically reformed tomorrow, I would not begrudge it its existence. I don’t care whether it exists or not. I care about the people inside and outside of it. I would encourage members of the LDS Church to defy their leaders when their leaders make bad choices. I would encourage them to protect their kids by speaking out about gender, about sexuality, and about ending worthiness interviews forever.

Most of all I would want people to value and love themselves and each other because that is what matters. That is what we can do something about. Our quiet efforts in that regard have much more impact than arguments about Book of Mormon antiquity.