Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_DrW]

Just over 1,100 views in just over three hours.

That sound you hear is breaking shelves.

The acrid odor is sweating apologists.

[_Kishkumen]

This book you reference is not as powerful as the first...

On the whole, no. But in terms of the descriptions of the Gauls? One could practically replace the name with Lamanites at points.

Look also at Chapter 2.10 (p. 17):

But the Gauls were altogether a wicked and perverse people, and the tree which they have planted in the midst of them was a blasted tree, and lo and behold, it brought forth nothing but bad and forbidden fruit, and all manner of unrighteousness, such as pertaineth unto the idol of whom it is before-written, and whom they, in the foolish imaginations of their hearts, had vainly worshipped.

The resonance with Book of Mormon language is striking, in my opinion.

[_Kishkumen]

Just posted on Patheos:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2013/10/the-imperative-for-a-historical-book-of-mormon.html

[_vessr]

Someone please read Chapter XX, verses 11-16 and tell me if I'm the only one seeing an amazing coincidence.

not enough to support a charge of plagiarism, in my opinion.

[_Shulem]

Just over 1,100 views in just over three hours.

That sound you hear is breaking shelves.

The acrid odor is sweating apologists.

Shades needs to pin this thread right away. Everything has changed. This is perhaps the greatest discovery since the lost papyrus were rediscovered in the 1960's. This is a new dawn, folks. Mormonism is in serious, serious, trouble.

Isn't it wonderful?

Paul O

[_Kishkumen]

I don't believe what we are looking at is plagiarism. It is generic imitation. Joseph Smith seems to have become aware, most likely through Hunt, of this quasi-biblical prose epic genre and run with it for his own prose epic on Hebrews in Ancient America. There are simply too many echoes of Hunt's work in Smith's for this to be mere coincidence.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Just posted on Patheos:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2013/10/the-imperative-for-a-historical-book-of-mormon.html

Kish, if that's the Mopologists' official reponse to your post, then on behalf of Mormons I humbly submit that we are screwed in regard to the Book of Mormon being historical.

I've only skimmed this book, and so far I've found numerous terms that are completely "unique" to the Book of Mormon. Hard to explain, at the very least.

I hope Cassius goes into full overdrive and reviews these books ASAP.

[_mms]

That sound you hear is breaking shelves.

At least the pathway will be clear--there no longer being a need to crawl around the Book of Mormon to leave the Church.

[_Blixa]

I don't believe what we are looking at is plagiarism. It is generic imitation. Joseph Smith seems to have become aware, most likely through Hunt, of this quasi-biblical prose epic genre and run with it for his own prose epic on Hebrews in Ancient America. There are simply too many echoes of Hunt's work in Smith's for this to be mere coincidence.

Exactly. "Plagiarism" was never really the point, though many people have misguidedly thrown that phrase around.

[Guest]

I don't believe what we are looking at is plagiarism. It is generic imitation. Joseph Smith seems to have become aware, most likely through Hunt, of this quasi-biblical prose epic genre and run with it for his own prose epic on Hebrews in Ancient America. There are simply too many echoes of Hunt's work in Smith's for this to be mere coincidence.

Exactly. "Plagiarism" was never really the point, though many people have misguidedly thrown that phrase around.

Although, I think one would be hard pressed to say that the terms, "freemen", "stripling", "fine workmanship", "curious workmanship", etc. don't border on plagarism.