Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Tim the Enchanter]

I don't have time to go through all of the comments, but I just wanted to point out that a quick google books search shows that the language used in the Book of Mormon is far more common than those pushing the Late War thesis seem to realize.

I don't doubt that, but I think the "smoking gun" rhetoric is that Late War appears to be among the influences (as opposed to the primary influnence) on the Book or Mormon.

It's more than just occasional shared common phrases. Consider what I've posted elsewhere in this thread (that no one seems to have noticed so maybe I'm making something out of nothing) comparing a portion of Alma 49 to Late War Chapter XXIX.

In both cases, in the space of a few verses, the commonalities are (1) a host of bad guys comes to war against the (2) good guys in a fort. The good guys are (3) prepared, the good guys (4) slaughter the bad guys, whose bodies (5) fill up the ditch around the fort, and the surviving bad guys (6) flee into the forest/wilderness.

See Alma 49:20-25 and Late War Chapter XXIX verses 20-23.

If Joseph Smith didn't pull from Late War, would you expect to see similarities such as this? This is more than just common phrases. This is a common story.

[_Runtu]

If Joseph Smith really pulled from the LW, we would certainly expect to see much more of LW's themes and language to appear in the Book of Mormon. Sheesh, most of the LW involves naval battle--none of which occurs in the Book of Mormon. Do search of "fleet" "ship" and "ships" in LW. Those terms are spread throughout the whole book, but "fleet" never appears in the Book of Mormon and "ship/ships/shipping" only occurs twice outside of Nephi (Alma 63 and Helaman 3)

My point has been that we do see LW's themes and language in the Book of Mormon. The language of the KJV was chosen deliberately, and the main theme of both books is two civilizations at war, one righteous and the other wicked. What I find interesting is the stylistic choices made to describe people and battles. They are awfully similar, in my opinion.

It would be simple to say that the Book of Mormon talks about ancient America and the LW talks about naval battles. But that oversimplifies things.

[_robuchan]

I don't have time to go through all of the comments, but I just wanted to point out that a quick google books search shows that the language used in the Book of Mormon is far more common than those pushing the Late War thesis seem to realize.

I don't doubt that, but I think the "smoking gun" rhetoric is that Late War appears to be among the influences (as opposed to the primary influnence) on the Book or Mormon.

It's more than just occasional shared common phrases. Consider what I've posted elsewhere in this thread (that no one seems to have noticed so maybe I'm making something out of nothing) comparing a portion of Alma 49 to Late War Chapter XXIX.

In both cases, in the space of a few verses, the commonalities are (1) a host of bad guys comes to war against the (2) good guys in a fort. The good guys are (3) prepared, the good guys (4) slaughter the bad guys, whose bodies (5) fill up the ditch around the fort, and the surviving bad guys (6) flee into the forest/wilderness.

See Alma 49:20-25 and Late War Chapter XXIX verses 20-23.

If Joseph Smith didn't pull from Late War, would you expect to see similarities such as this? This is more than just common phrases. This is a common story.

Kind of like when both Moroni and Paul pray to God to have a weakness removed. And both times, God speaks to them. And both times the answer is no. And both times God uses the word strength and weakness. And both times God uses the phrase "grace is sufficient". (the only two times it appears that phrase appears in scripture) And both accounts use the relatively rare word "fool" (only appears five other times in the Book of Mormon).

This is not common language being lifted. This is repeating the same story.

[_robuchan]

I don't have time to go through all of the comments, but I just wanted to point out that a quick google books search shows that the language used in the Book of Mormon is far more common than those pushing the Late War thesis seem to realize.

I don't doubt that, but I think the "smoking gun" rhetoric is that Late War appears to be among the influences (as opposed to the primary influnence) on the Book or Mormon.

It's more than just occasional shared common phrases. Consider what I've posted elsewhere in this thread (that no one seems to have noticed so maybe I'm making something out of nothing) comparing a portion of Alma 49 to Late War Chapter XXIX.

In both cases, in the space of a few verses, the commonalities are (1) a host of bad guys comes to war against the (2) good guys in a fort. The good guys are (3) prepared, the good guys (4) slaughter the bad guys, whose bodies (5) fill up the ditch around the fort, and the surviving bad guys (6) flee into the forest/wilderness.

See Alma 49:20-25 and Late War Chapter XXIX verses 20-23.

If Joseph Smith didn't pull from Late War, would you expect to see similarities such as this? This is more than just common phrases. This is a common story.

Similar issue with masonry and the temple. It's fine that he lifted the temple language and the tokens and all that. It's pretty sketchy when you see that it infiltrated doctrine, ie deification, exaltation concepts, priesthood, etc.

[Guest]

I don't have time to go through all of the comments, but I just wanted to point out that a quick google books search shows that the language used in the Book of Mormon is far more common than those pushing the Late War thesis seem to realize.

For example: "curious workmanship."

"fine workmanship"

"all manner of cattle"

The same can pretty much done with every "SMOKING GUN!" phrase.

By arguing that the language used in the Book of Mormon is not special you may succeed in delinking the Great War and the Book of Mormon, but you simultaneously destroy the supposed langauge evidences. All of the alleged hebrewims and other language evidences are now dead in the water. The metholodgy is now shown to incredibly flawed and prone to false positives. Where once the arguments were made for their rarity and uniqueness of the langauge of the Book of Mormon they must now be made to show how common it was as you have done above.
You might suceed in separating the Book of Mormon from the late war, but by doing so you will demonstrate the Book of Mormon is simply a product of its time.
So good luck!

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

You might suceed in separating the Book of Mormon from the late war, but by doing so you will demonstrate the Book of Mormon is simply a product of its time.
So good luck!

Sammy,

From what I've read so far, I would say it's going to be statistically impossible to separate the two books, regardless of what "research" the Mopologists attempt.

I'm anxiously awaiting an objective and comprehensive comparision of the two books.

[_lostindc]

Sammy,

From what I've read so far, I would say it's going to be statistically impossible to separate the two books, regardless of what "research" the Mopologists attempt.

I'm anxiously awaiting an objective and comprehensive comparision of the two books.

You may not have to wait very long if my proposal is accepted. As some here may not know, I have assisted the formerly know FAIR LDS folks, specifically Mr. Gordon with publications. For ole times sake I have thrown my proverbial hat in the ring to offer my assistance.

[Guest]

Looking at that pattern of numbers, my question is three of those dates came from month 1. I assume it's something like in one verse they say month 1, day 1. Then next verse it's the next day and they say month 1, day 2. like that? Probably also the same for the seventh month? If so, you only have five dates. And you can toss the 1,1 because it's clearly not a random date. So you have four dates?

I would agree that the data set is small. However, there are still a number of questions one can ask about the characteristics of the two data sets, both individually, and as compared to one another.

The first question, one that has been asked, is whether or not the two sets have element values that are randomly distributed between 1 and 30. The answer is probably yes for the LW set, and no for the Book of Mormon set.

If you wish to claim that one of the data sets is not random or has elements that are not randomly distributed, you are essentially making the point of the argument.

If you wish to compare the two data sets for difference, without the assumption or expectation that they would be randomly distributed, they can be compared non-parametrically. Turns out that they are different by an applicable non-parametric (rank sign type) test as well.

So, one can argue as to whether or not these statistical comparisons of the data sets mean anything, given the small N, or indeed if one is even asking the right questions.

I would say that if the data sets are complete (all relevant available data for matched pair elements are considered - in this case the first 8 dates to appear in both publications), there has been no pre-selection or cherry picking, and N is sufficient to allow a test for significance (which it is), then one can consider the differences in the two data sets is not due to chance alone.

Beyond this, the meaning or significance of the tests becomes an issue of personal preference or interpretation.

[_robuchan]

Looking at that pattern of numbers, my question is three of those dates came from month 1. I assume it's something like in one verse they say month 1, day 1. Then next verse it's the next day and they say month 1, day 2. like that? Probably also the same for the seventh month? If so, you only have five dates. And you can toss the 1,1 because it's clearly not a random date. So you have four dates?

I would agree that the data set is small. However, there are still a number of questions one can ask about the characteristics of the two data sets, both individually, and as compared to one another.

The first question, one that has been asked, is whether or not the two sets have element values that are randomly distributed between 1 and 30. The answer is probably yes for the LW set, and no for the Book of Mormon set.

If you wish to claim that one of the data sets is not random or has elements that are not randomly distributed, you are essentially making the point of the argument.

If you wish to compare the two data sets for difference, without the assumption or expectation that they would be randomly distributed, they can be compared non-parametrically. Turns out that they are different by an applicable non-parametric (rank sign type) test as well.

So, one can argue as to whether or not these statistical comparisons of the data sets mean anything, given the small N, or indeed if one is even asking the right questions.

I would say that if the data sets are complete (all relevant available data for matched pair elements are considered - in this case the first 8 dates to appear in both publications), there has been no pre-selection or cherry picking, and N is sufficient to allow a test for significance (which it is), then one can consider the differences in the two data sets as not due to chance alone.

Beyond this, the meaning or significance of the tests becomes an issue of personal preference or interpretation.

You ignored my questions. At a minimum, you have to throw out the 1,1 date. And possibly three other of those dates. So you only have four dates. If so, that's not going to be statisticaly significant no matter what. Also, numbers are not random. You see more 1's than 9's in actual data like this.

[_robuchan]

Something more condemning than this related to dates is the old age that all the patriarchs/kings lived to in the Book of Mormon. Many instances of 80, 90,100, 120 years old. I don't think that was typical for Mesoamerica. But of course Brant Gardner says it depends on what the definition of years is. Fortunately for the Book of Mormon apologist, no word in the Book of Mormon has any meaning to it. Pretty f***ed up way for a God to reveal his most perfect set of doctrine if you ask me.