Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_sock puppet]

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.

No, Equality, you are not making it up. The mopologetic mindset is very broadly fantastical thinking.

My retort, then, is how much did Mg's brain trust (SWK, NET, MGR, BKP and GHP) pay Hoffman for the "only" copy of this book?

[_Philo Sofee]

On p. 104 it speaks of the ditch around the fort that was filled with the bodies of the slain. We see this same kind of build up in Alma 53:4 where the timbers were on top of the ditch and they used the dirt of the ditch to support the timbers. Yet another detail included conceptually. It will be interesting to see just how many ideas Joseph Smith could have gathered from this if he had access to it. Would anyone put the details of a ditch around a fortress in Joseph Smith's day? Someone did, and the inclusion of this detail might be another small weight in the accumulated weight of ideas as we all have been exploring. We now know that this detail is a 19th century detail. It is an intriguing thing this book that has been discovered.

[_Nevo]

It looks like the author(s) of the Book of Mormon made use of a wide range of materials.

Indeed.

Solomon Spalding's Manuscript Story
Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews
Josiah Priest's The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed
Mercy Otis Warren's history of the Revolutionary War
Gilbert J. Hunt's history of the War of 1812 and the Algerian War
Modeste Grau's The First Book of Napoleon
Clavigero's History of Mexico
Neibuhr's Travels through Arabia
"The Third Epistle of Peter"
The Westminster Confession
Hamlet
etc.

[_sock puppet]

Some nineteenth-century writers wrote in a pseudo-biblical style.

JSJr was indeed one of them.

[_sock puppet]

Well, what with all of the articles Mopologists have failed to write on Hunt and The First Book of Napoleon, one wonders exactly what it is they have been up to all these years? Surely not reading and analyzing contemporary literature in a similar genre. What kind of critical thinker would do that?

Sara Cranford read and analyzed Hunt's The Late War for the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute's "Archive of Restoration Culture" project about a dozen years ago. Her report was published on the BYU Studies website in 2009 (see p. 215). Does that count?

Well, did Cranford point out that it was a Hoffman forgery?

[_The Erotic Apologist]

It looks like the author(s) of the Book of Mormon made use of a wide range of materials.

Indeed.

Solomon Spalding's Manuscript Story
Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews
Josiah Priest's The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed
Mercy Otis Warren's history of the Revolutionary War
Gilbert J. Hunt's history of the War of 1812 and the Algerian War
Modeste Grau's The First Book of Napoleon
Clavigero's History of Mexico
Neibuhr's Travels through Arabia
"The Third Epistle of Peter"
The Westminster Confession
Hamlet
etc.

You're right--it was more likely written with the aid of a magical rock and a hat. That makes so much more sense. It's really quite obvious if you think about it.

[_DarkHelmet]

Of all the books with similarities to the Book of Mormon, this is the most impressive, but I think the apologist reaction will be much like Nevo's. Internet Mormons and apologists are so numb to the evidence against the church that nothing flusters them anymore. They're like a prizefighter taking a beating in the corner, clumsily bringing up their gloves to defend themselves as their eyes swell up and blood flies from their nose. Everyone knows the fight is over, and it has been for a long time, but the fighter valiantly remains standing, stubbornly refusing to fall down like so many TBMs have before them. The blows don't even hurt anymore. This book is just one more uppercut to the jaw. Nevo offers a weak defense that everyone was writing pseudo-Biblibal texts in the early 1800s, so we shouldn't expect the Book of Mormon to be any different. I'm not really sure how that's a defense since it supports the critics who believe The Book of Mormon was just another pseudo-Biblical text from the early 1800s.

However, TBMs who stumble across this will be shocked. I remember being a naïve TBM and reading the Book of Abraham issue for the first time. The rediscovered papyrus was the smoking gun proving the Book of Abraham was a fraud. I don't think this book is a smoking gun for the Book of Mormon, but it is just another piece of the puzzle that appears to disprove the church's claims of the origin of the Book of Mormon.

[_Gadianton]

Solomon Spalding's Manuscript Story
Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews

I studied these briefly before and on my mission. Neither caused me to question much. I suppose I found it mildly disturbing that the Book of Mormon wasn't the only game in town when it came to stories of splinter groups discovering the new world. But had I encountered "Late War" on my mission, I may have removed my badge and got on a plane. Spanner's point was that I haven't got out much when it comes to Book of Mormon origin theories. That is probably true, and I don't mean to dismiss these efforts which certainly show the 19th century within the Book of Mormon. Certainly, that there was a climate of "Bible writing" going on is seriously damning itself. Nevo's point is that ok, with all these possible sources, it gets a little absurd to think that Joseph Smith sat down with all of them to bang out a fraud. Joseph Smith nor his buddies were stupid, it's unlikely that unless something like "Manuscript Found" was stolen such that it could be covered up, that he (or they) would outright plagiarize any one book. I mean, what a way to get caught. At the same time, it seems that a small number of works, or even a single work, would have played a direct role, and unlikely that Joseph Smith had a library full of the stuff he was pulling from. I just think "Late War" connects in a way the primary candidates don't, and is seriously on the table as a direct source.

by the way, I went back through the thread since I was out for a while today and only now came across Kishkumen's discussion of "curious workmanship" and the clock-like torpedoes. fascinating indeed, I'm archiving that one.

[_ludwigm]

Apparently, the writer of "Late War" was a veganist - he listed herbs and fruits.
Ether wasn't veganist - he listed the meaty creatures.
Or this two people - Gilbert J. Hunt and Ether (alias JS) - had simply different gusto?

12 Likewise, all manner of creatures which are used for food, and herbs and fruits of the earth:
13 From the red cherry, and the rosy peach of the north, to the lemon, and the golden orange of the south.

18 And also all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were useful for the food of man.

But...

- was Ether an ancient Jewish - who taught and kept "Law of Moses", an expression appearing 33 times in Book of Mormon
or
- was he a 19th century American - who knew that expression, and nothing behind the mere expression


"and of swine ... which were useful for the food"
Swine?

Leviticus 11:7. And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

Deuteronomy 14:8.And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

[_ludwigm]

"Have a slice of Emma's layer cake, boys..."

I love You!

Didn't I say this yet?