Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Kishkumen]

Now we need to find some Chiasmus in Late War.

Oh, I believe that DCP told us all some time ago what is required:

An authentic, signed affidavit wherein Joseph Smith affirms that he made the whole thing up.

In any case, I am not looking for apologists to accept this as evidence for the modern composition of the Book of Mormon.

I don't need that. What we have always lacked was any good reason to think the Book of Mormon was a history of events that actually transpired in antiquity.

All this does is make me happy that we have more evidence to help us understand the kinds of influences that helped shape Joseph Smith's writing of the Book of Mormon.

[Guest]

I just saw a discussion of this on a Facebook friend's wall. It looks like the immediate Mormontologist response to it is to argue that the source book is most likely a Mark Hofmann forgery because it was first microfiched in 1985, the same year many Hofmann forgeries were microfiched buy libraries. I am not making this up. That's the "faithful" argument: Mark Hofmann created forgeries that people thought had uncanny resemblances to the Book of Mormon, so this book with uncanny references is most likely a forgery.

Hofmann evidently forged multiple printings of the book. I have seen three thus far.

Library of Congress has:

Hunt, Gilbert J. and James Madison Pamphlet Collection (Library of Congress) (1821). Proposals for publishing by subscription, The history of America, from its discovery by Christopher Columbus, to the year 1812 : to be comprised in one volume written in the ancient historical style, by G.J. Hunt, author of The history of the late war, in the same style. New York, N.Y.?, G.J. Hunt.

Rare Book/Special Collections Reading Room (Jefferson LJ239) E302; .M192 1783 vol. 1, no. 16

(My bolding)

I think that should deal with the claim that this was not a real book ...

But varying the title, we also find:

Hunt, Gilbert J. (1816). The late war, between the United States and Great Britain, from June 1812, to February 1815 : written in the ancient historical style. New York, Pub. and sold for the author, by David Longworth.

Two copies of:

Hunt, Gilbert J. (1819). The historical reader; containing The late war between the United States and Great Britain, from June, 1812, to February, 1815. New-York,, David Longworth.

Original editions, not the 1976 microfilm.

No more questions, your honor.

Don't these people know how to do a bibliographical search online??

[_Runtu]

Thanks for the tip, DrW. You are correct. One can readily see how a young Joseph Smith could have been influenced by this work.

Two words: Samuel Mitchill. Holy crap!

ETA: Samuel L. Mitchill., as in Samuel Latham Mitchill. Yes, it's the same man. There's only one reason to put someone's name in the preface, and that is to add prestige to the book. Thus, the person must be someone noteworthy, and there was only one reknowned Samuel L. Mitchill in that time period in New York.

[_Runtu]

The other name that appears in the preface is J[ohn] W Picket, who along with Albert Picket, was a noted academic whose specialty was language and grammar. It would make sense for Hunt to include Mitchill, a man known as a sort of living encyclopedia, as well as Picket, who gives his stamp of approval of the language used.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Two words: Samuel Mitchill. Holy crap!

ETA: Samuel L. Mitchill., as in Samuel Latham Mitchill. Yes, it's the same man. There's only one reason to put someone's name in the preface, and that is to add prestige to the book. Thus, the person must be someone noteworthy, and there was only one reknowned Samuel L. Mitchill in that time period in New York.

So, this is the same Samuel L. Mitchell that Joseph Smith directed Martin Harris to visit?!

The connections between Joseph Smith and this book are mounting up.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

As much as I hate myself for saying it, sometimes it pays to be on Facebook. While perusing my News feed, I came across an excited post from one of my "friends" about a book he claimed was very likely one of Joseph Smith's sources for the Book of Mormon. Naturally, I was skeptical. After all, we have seen the various works that have been brought forward as possible inspirations for Smith's Book of Mormon, most famously the Spalding novel, and I have not been particularly impressed by any of them.

So, I hit the link expecting to be underwhelmed, when the following language leapt off the page:

Now it came to pass, in the one thousand eight hundred and twelfth year of the christian era, and in the thirty and sixth year after the people of the provinces of Columbia had declared themselves a free and independent nation;

2. That in the sixth month of the same year, on the first day of the month, the chief Governor, whom the people had chosen to rule over the land of Columbia;

3. Even James, whose sir-name was Madison, delivered a written paper to the Great Sannhedrim of the people, who were assembled together.

4. And the name of the city where the people were gathered together was called after the name of the chief captain of the land of Columbia, whose fame extendeth to the uttermost parts of the earth; albeit, he had slept with his fathers.

I was stunned.

The book is The History of the Late War between the United States and Great Britain by Gilbert J. Hunt. It was published in 1816. Its author lived in New York City, and, according to the person who posted the original link, it was "widely available in New York schools in the 1820s."

Thus far I have only read the first two chapters, but I have to say that the resemblance to the language of the Book of Mormon is very striking. Whoever discovered this may have unlocked an important aspect of the mystery of the production of the Book of Mormon.

Take a look for yourselves:

http://archive.org/stream/latewarbetweenun00inhunt#page/n13/mode/2up

Wow, Kish! This is why I love this board -- great stuff. Makes me forget all about the Liz debacle. This history book is quite stunning -- I'm not ready to declare it a 'silver bullet' just yet, but the similarities between it and the Book of Mormon cannot be ignored.

[_robuchan]

Great thread and thanks for the information.

[_Runtu]

I don't see this as a smoking gun, but it answers a couple of questions:

1. Why did Joseph Smith mimic language of the KJV?

The author having adopted for the model of his style the phraseology of the best books, remarkable for its simplicity and strength, the young pupil will acquire, with the knowledge of reading, a love for the manner in which the great truths of Divine Revelation are conveyed to his understanding, and this will be an inducement to him to study the Holy Scriptures.

Mitchill says the same thing:

It seems to me one of the best attempts to imitate the biblical style; and if the perusal of it can induce young persons to relish and love the sacred books whose language you have imitated, it will be the strongest of all recommendations.

2. Why did Joseph Smith send Martin Harris to Samuel Mitchill?

The endorsements are clearly an effort to give the book legitimacy, hence improving its marketability. Hunt is quite wise in getting the endorsement of Mitchill, who was well-known as a sort of human encyclopedia. The endorsement from Picket would get him into the educational market, as well. Joseph Smith may well have thought that such an endorsement from Mitchill and Anthon would legitimize the book. Failing that, he drafted the witness statements.

[_Molok]

Would anyone mind explaining the connection between Joseph Smith and Samuel L. Mitchill for us never-mo's?

[_Sammy Jankins]

I apologize if this has already been noted.

I opened up the full text version and hit ctrl-f and searched for "it came to pass" and got 76 hits. I searched for "and it came to pass" and got 15.

Definitely a MesoAmerican text!